On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Gerald B. Cox <gbcox@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> > As far as BTRFS >> >> > is concerned however, I believe that ship has sailed. I used it for 4 >> > years, but after the recent news regarding RAID >> >> The only news about Btrfs RAID I can think of that you're referring to >> is the raid5 scrub bug that corrupts parity in a very specific >> situation. It's a bad bug, but it's also really rare. > > > That may be, but all the articles I read suggested "be afraid, be very > afraid". > In addition, https://goo.gl/V2IyFq > basically just comes out and says, not to use it. That's stale and overstated but I'm fine with dire warnings because otherwise people use experimental stuff and flip out when it face plants. What's needed are people who can tediously gather an autopsy report so it can be made better. And that's pretty much what's happening. > I knew that it was experimental when I first set it up years ago, but I > never imagined > it would still be experimental in 2016. I just got tired of waiting, and > the statement > that it would all most likely have to be rewritten was just the last straw > for me. The > only reason I was using it was because of the ease and flexibility to run > Raid5/6. With > that apparently nowhere now on the horizon, time to cut my loses and move > on. Uhh OK, well it's an entirely new implementation of parity raid, unlike md or ZFS ZRAID. It was first merged a bit over three years ago, and the scrub and device replacement code only came last year. And even still there's no concept of faulty devices - so you don't get behaviors like devices being ejected from the array on write error or massive numbers of reads. It's entirely reasonable to want something more mature. If your use case requires bitrot and silent data corruption protection and parity raid, the single option is OpenZFS ZRAID. > >> >> Anyway it's a bad bug. But it's not correct to assign this bug to the >> other three raid profiles or Btrfs in general - where it has numerous >> features not all of which have the same maturity. > > > Agreed, but in my mind the last episode throws some serious shade > on the entire project. Once upon a time, there was talk about making the > default in > Fedora, but now - not so much. In the meantime XFS is being improved and > bcachefs is > being developed. Tick tock... About the Fedora default, this recently came up on desktop@ so I'll just refer to that: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/T6FNLLPJ7LICKSVTTPS4KSIDHOKUUPNC/ -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
