Hi! > > So the question is, is it worth it to continue supporting the migrate > > feature, or should we just delete all of the migration code, and risk > > users complaining that we've broken their use case? The chances of > > that happening is admittedly low, and Linus's rule that "it's only > > breaking userspace if a user complains" means we might very well get > > away with it. :-) > > That's a very good summary Ted, thanks. > > Our rationale behind not supporting the migration was always the fact > that we felt that backup was absolutely necessary before operation like > this. When you already have up-to-date backup available you might as > well create a fresh ext4 file system with all the advantages it brings > and recover data from said backup. I think this is still a very > reasonable approach. Umm. Not really? First... full backup/restore will take a _long_ time. Second... if you do online migration, you have filesystem you are quite unlikely to corrupt, and backup you are unlikely to use. If you do backup/restore, you have to be _way_ more careful that backup media is reliable etc. Best regards, Pavel -- http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
