> I've been very clear from the outset that Facebook's fault tolerance is much > higher than the average Fedora user. The only reason I've agreed to assist in > answering questions and support this proposal is because I have multi-year data > that shows our failure rates are the same that we see on every other file > system, which is basically the failure rate of the disks themselves. > > And I specifically point out the hardware that we use that most closely reflects > the drives that an average Fedora user is going to have. We of course have a > very wide variety of hardware. In fact the very first thing we deployed on were > these expensive hardware RAID setups. Btrfs found bugs in that firmware that > was silently corrupting data. These corruptions had been corrupting AI test > data for years under XFS, and Btrfs found it in a matter of days because of our > checksumming. > > We use all sorts of hardware, and have all sorts of similar stories like this. > I agree that the hardware is going to be muuuuuch more varied with Fedora users, > and that Facebook has muuuuch higher fault tolerance. But higher production > failures inside FB means more engineering time spent dealing with those > failures, which translates to lost productivity. If btrfs was causing us to run > around fixing it all the time then we wouldn't deploy it. The fact is that it's > not, it's perfectly stable from our perspective. Thanks, Thanks for the details, you have any data/information/opinions on non x86 architectures such as aarch64/armv7/ppc64le all of which have supported desktops too? Peter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
