| 1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:53:50 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> From what I've seen as long as you keep things simple, and don't have |
| 4 |
> heavy loads, you're at least reasonably likely to get by unscathed. I'd |
| 5 |
> definitely keep good backups though. Just read the mailing lists, |
| 6 |
> or for kicks run xfs-test |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Oh, and go ahead and try filling up your disk some time. If your kernel |
| 9 |
> is recent enough it might not panic when you get down to a few GB left. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'm eager for the rise of btrfs - it IS the filesystem of the future. |
| 12 |
> However, that cuts both ways right now. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That's about right... along with the caveat that if something /does/ go |
| 15 |
wrong on your not too corner-case, generally normal, lightly loaded |
| 16 |
system, while there are recovery tools for /some/ situations, the normal |
| 17 |
distribution btrfsck is read-only. The freshly sort-of available but |
| 18 |
still rather hidden in the DANGER, DON'T EVER USE branch error-correcting |
| 19 |
btrfsck, is still under very heavy stress testing internally by Oracle |
| 20 |
QA. (As a result of those tests, there's a load of fixes headed to Linus |
| 21 |
for inclusion, discovered just since 3.3-rc1. As a result of /that/ 3.3 |
| 22 |
should be the most stable btrfs yet, but that's still far from saying |
| 23 |
it's stable!) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
And yes, "filesystem of the future" DOES cut both ways, ATM. It's an apt |
| 26 |
description and I too am seriously looking forward to btrfs. But it's |
| 27 |
definitely NOT the "filesystem of now", for sure! =:^) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives