> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 3:56 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I personally would throw out the datacenter numbers. The use case is different. But what they represent is sheer volume. No company is going to put up with intrinsic problems with a file system at this scale. It's 100's of thousands of btrfs instances, and millions of containers. If there were a per se problem, it would be a shit show. Consider openSUSE who have been using it for six years. And even in Fedora btrfs users at slightly smaller scale is positive. > Why? > Through your whole email you keep saying "except for hardware failures" > Datacenters tend to have lifetimes. Meaning that if a machine/disk is > too old it get's replaced. Or at least put in the "when this dies it > get's replaced." > Datacenters are also much more uniform. If you 1000 machines, the > odds are that at most you have 10 to 20 variety of machines and/or > hard drives. One the datacenter I last worked at if you had 1000 > machines, you had 1 variety. Yes. Although they report using consumer hardware that they know is very ordinary if not below average. Quite a lot of datacenters don't do that. > What Fedora, and especially desktop Fedora, has is variety. Variety > on new, medium, and old machines. > How many people on this list often get hand-me down machines from > windows users and we throw Fedora on them and they work great. > Why do they work great? > Because most of those hardware errors, especially disk errors, are > recoverable or not even noticed. You've got two basic kinds: silent data corruption, and the case of unrecoverable read (or write) error reported by the drive itself. The later should always result in an i/o error, doesn't matter what the file system is. And there's no recovery for any file system unless there's redundancy. For silent data corruption, you don't actually know it's benign, you just know it's getting to user space. What happens, depends on the corruption and the application. It could result in a crash, or application confusion that leads to more corruption, or maybe nothing. If it's your backup application, you're replicating corruption into your backups silently. It is correct that Fedora will have to assess the relative importance of catching such corruptions early or letting them to do whatever it is that they do. Btrfs, upon detecting data corruption, results in i/o error which should be properly handled by applications anyway. And path to affected file is reported in kernel messages. > Did you count how many times you said "unless there's hardware > problems" in your email. > That does not give me confidence. In the hardware? Or the file system? Because just ignoring the reality of this class of corruption is itself a choice that has consequences. And a significant consequence is, you just don't know about it. How do you have confidence about events that you don't know are occurring or what's happening as a result? -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ kde mailing list -- kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kde-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
