| 1 |
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I've been using btrfs exclusively for about 6 months, and I don't |
| 4 |
> *think* I've lost anything... :) |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
From what I've seen as long as you keep things simple, and don't have |
| 8 |
heavy loads, you're at least reasonably likely to get by unscathed. |
| 9 |
I'd definitely keep good backups though. Just read the mailing lists, |
| 10 |
or for kicks run xfs-test on your server. Xfs-test doesn't do any |
| 11 |
direct disk access or anything like that - it is no different than |
| 12 |
running bazillions of cat's, mv's, rm's, cp's, etc. It most likely |
| 13 |
will panic your system if you try it on btrfs - on ext4 it will |
| 14 |
probably load the living daylights out of it but you should be fine. |
| 15 |
The issues with btrfs at this point are the ones that aren't so easy |
| 16 |
to spot, like race conditions, issues when you use more unusual |
| 17 |
configurations, and so on. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Oh, and go ahead and try filling up your disk some time. If your |
| 20 |
kernel is recent enough it might not panic when you get down to a few |
| 21 |
GB left. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'm eager for the rise of btrfs - it IS the filesystem of the future. |
| 24 |
However, that cuts both ways right now. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives