On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:33:26 -0500 Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn > <dennisml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser<jreiser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Âwrote: > >>> On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote: > >>>> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best > >>>> experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing > >>>> in the past" (i.e stagnation). > >>> > >>> *One* data corruption constitutes EPIC FAIL. ÂBtrfs is too young, > >>> and will be for yet a while longer. > >>> > >> > >> Well if data corruption is the test then we shouldn't be using Ext4 > >> either, there was one fixed as recently as the beginning of this > >> month. ÂFile systems are software like anything else, there will be > >> bugs. ÂOff the top of my head I can think of 3 data corrupters > >> we've had in 4 years of working on BTRFS, and they've all been > >> hard to hit and have not to my knowledge been seen by users, only > >> us developers in testing. ÂBTRFS is young, but we have to start > >> somewhere. ÂThanks, > > > > I'm actually not that worried about corruption as that is something > > that can be fixed once discovered. What creeps me out about btrfs > > at the moment is this: > > > > https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Help.21__Btrfs_claims_I.27m_out_of_space.2C_but_it_looks_like_I_should_have_lots_left.21 > > > > The fact that the FS needs manual rebalance operations and that > > these can "take a while" (even tough this can be done online) > > doesn't exactly make btrfs the ideal candidate for an end-user > > desktop system that should pretty much be able to look after itself. > > I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially for servers > > because of it's features but this problem really worries me. > > > > Yes this is one of the more complicated areas of BTRFS and tends to > blow up in our faces a lot. That being said it's only a big deal if > you tend to run your filesystem close to full a lot, which most people > do not. It is an area that we work very hard to make sure it's not a > problem, hopefully we have eliminated all of the big problems and you > should really only see ENOSPC when you actually fill up the disk. > Thanks, Sorry josef, but I do that all the time with my Virtual Machines, as I do not give them more space then strictly needed. I did that to the point that I needed to uninstall a few devel packages in order to upgrade from f14 to rawhide on a VM ... I am, not sure how common it is on a desktop, just wanted to point out it is a use case to be able to run with little disk at least for development VMs. (I guess I can manually run whatever tool there, as long as it is clearly recognizable when I need to do so). Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
