On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 16:49, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 7/9/20 2:11 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > >> > > >> From what I've gathered from these responses, btrfs is unique in that it is > > >> /expected/ that if anything goes wrong, the administrator should be prepared > > >> to scrape out remaining data, re-mkfs, and start over. If that's acceptable > > >> for the Fedora desktop, that's fine, but I consider it a risk that should not > > >> be ignored when evaluating this proposal. > > >> > > > > > > Agreed, it's the very first thing I said when I was asked what are the downsides. There's clearly more work to be done in the recovery arena. How often do disks fail for Fedora? Do we have that data? Is this a real risk? Nobody can say because Fedora doesn't have data. > > > > But again, let me reiterate that disk failures are far from the only > > reason that admins need capable filesystem repair tools, in general. > > > > We see users running fsck all the time, for various reasons. I can't > > back it up, but my hunch is that bugs and misconfigurations (i.e. write > > cache) are more often the root cause for filesystem inconsistencies. > > > > IMHO, focusing on physical disk failure rates is focusing too narrowly, > > but I suppose I'm just joining the chorus of hunches and anecdotes now. > > Actually there's quite a lot of evidence of this, even though there's > no precise estimate - not least of which these populations are > constantly dying and reemerging, and can be batch (firmware version) > specific. This is only the most recent such story on linux-btrfs@ (and > warning, this reads like an alien autopsy): > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20200708034407.GE10769@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > fsck.btrfs is a no op, same as fsck.xfs. And recently the actual > repair utility dissuades users from running it casually. > > COW file systems are different. ZFS has no fsck to speak of, it can be > harrassed badly by hardware/firmware bugs too, and yet there aren't > many people who consider ZFS a problemed file system. How would the > story of Btrfs be different either without dm-log-writes to this day, > or had it already arrived in 2010? > That is because anyone who questions the perfection of ZFS is quickly burned at a stake. I don't know what it is about filesystems turning into religions that do not brook questioning but what I am seeing in these emails is what turns me off of btrfs every time it is brought up in the same way I couldn't stand reiser, ZFS, or various other filesystems.. I realize filesystems take a lot of faith as people have to put something they value into a leap of faith it will be there the next day.. but it seems to morph quickly into some sort of fanatical evangelical movement. So a good reason why no one brings it up.. you learn quickly that questioning the perfection of any filesystem will fill your inbox with tirades from people. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ 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
