| 1 |
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 22:44 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@×××××××××××××.edu> wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking |
| 4 |
> >> them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable... |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The |
| 7 |
> > kernel modules are only available in the form of 9999 ebuilds right |
| 8 |
> > now, but they your data should be safe unless you go out of your way |
| 9 |
> > to break things (e.g. putting the ZIL/SLOG on a tmpfs). Alternatively, |
| 10 |
> > there is XFS, which I believe also supports snapshots. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I've been using btrfs exclusively for about 6 months, and I don't |
| 14 |
> *think* I've lost anything... :) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I did ... tried it out and found it "tougher" than reiserfs to break |
| 18 |
which is saying something considering how flaky extended 2/3 proved for |
| 19 |
the same task. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Problem was, once it broke you couldnt fix it :( |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Also there are some things that dont work, one of which was a few |
| 24 |
packages would always fail to emerge when using btrfs for temp storage |
| 25 |
(I think one was libreoffice) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So I deleted the btrfs partitions and put reiserfs back ... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
BillK |
Archives