| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 06:29:21AM +0800, William Kenworthy wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> One "odd" condition I ran into twice with the ssd + btrfs were |
| 4 |
> filesystems about half full but cant write to because the filesystem was |
| 5 |
> full! |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> After messy crashes it seemed like btrfs would "lose" some |
| 8 |
> files/sectors/whatever and the only way I could recover was an erase |
| 9 |
> cycle (IBM 520 series). It wasnt sub-volumes or other wrinkles as far |
| 10 |
> as I could see, just that btrfs/trim and the underlying disk didn't |
| 11 |
> agree and I couldn't figure out why ... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> For "my" use case, having good backups (regularly tested by actually |
| 14 |
> needing to use them :) have been an integral part of my ssd |
| 15 |
> "experiences" :) On the other side, the apple laptop with ssd + btrfs |
| 16 |
> on root has been problem free. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> BillK |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Everyone I know who uses BTRFS tells me they MUST keep backups, because of |
| 21 |
such as that. It seems it's just not yet ready for prime time. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I used EXT4 in the past, and now XFS, and never had any data loss. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Just my 2c and experience. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Happy Penguin Computers >') |
| 28 |
126 Fenco Drive ( \ |
| 29 |
Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ |
| 30 |
support@×××××××××××××××××××××.com |
| 31 |
662-269-2706 662-205-6424 |
| 32 |
http://happypenguincomputers.com/ |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. |
| 35 |
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? |
| 36 |
A: Top-posting. |
| 37 |
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting |
Archives