On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:36:10PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:12:34AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote: > > > > So there are a couple of issues with btrfs which I believe absolutely > > > > must be fixed before it can become the default > > > > > > I'd agree, though I'd have a different list of pet bugs. > > > > > > But that's a subjective judgement. I'd be the first to admit that I'm > > > pretty risk averse, especially when it comes to losing data and > > > rendering machines unbootable. > > > > I think both of us are making a subjective judgement. For myself, I > > "want to believe" in btrfs, having championed immutable > > state/wandering trees, and real databases for many years. > > > > BUT I'm deeply unhappy about data corrupting bugs being effectively > > ignored by upstream for months. That's not good. > > > > > I see no data corruption bugs that have been reported that are being > ignored, link to the email? The invalidate stuff was causing problems (not > a btrfs problem, we just got hurt by it the most), and it looks like those > were cleared up. I'm working on the only data corruption problem I know of > at the moment and it's not super clear its a data corruption problem. The link is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863978 Reported upstream here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/20257 I'd love this to have been fixed upstream somewhere. It is still affecting Fedora, but we can pull in the fix if you can point to it. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
