1 |
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@×××××××××××××.edu> wrote: |
2 |
>> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking |
3 |
>> them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable... |
4 |
> |
5 |
> Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The |
6 |
> kernel modules are only available in the form of 9999 ebuilds right |
7 |
> now, but they your data should be safe unless you go out of your way |
8 |
> to break things (e.g. putting the ZIL/SLOG on a tmpfs). Alternatively, |
9 |
> there is XFS, which I believe also supports snapshots. |
10 |
> |
11 |
|
12 |
FWIW, I'll second the ZFS > btrfs suggestion. I understand people want |
13 |
to go btrfs cause its the Linux way but in real world usage, its |
14 |
performance is abysmal We've had over a dozen developers switch to |
15 |
btrfs in my group on their various environments (OpenSUSE, Fedora, own |
16 |
rolled distros) and they've all gone back to their previous filesystem |
17 |
of choice. |
18 |
|
19 |
Simplest test I can suggest to btrfs users to attempt is the following: |
20 |
|
21 |
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/btrfs/file bs=4k count=100 oflag=direct |
22 |
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/ext4/file bs=4k count=100 oflag=direct |
23 |
|
24 |
It will emulate the similar operation to an fdatasync(). |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Doug Goldstein |