Re: btrfs w/ centos 7.1

[Jan Schermer <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The answer to this, as well as life, universe and everything, is simple:

ZFS.

:)

On 07 Aug 2015, at 22:24, Quentin Hartman <qhartman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would say probably not. btrfs (or, "worse FS" as we call it around my office) still does weird stuff from time to time, especially in low-memory conditions. This is based on testing we did on Ubuntu 14.04, running kernel 3.16.something.

I long for the day that btrfs realizes it's promise, but I do not think that day is here.

QH

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Ben Hines <bhines@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Howdy,

The Ceph docs still say btrfs is 'experimental' in one section, but
say it's the long term ideal for ceph in the later section. Is this
still accurate with Hammer? Is it mature enough on centos 7.1 for
production use?

(kernel is  3.10.0-229.7.2.el7.x86_64 )

thanks-

-Ben
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com