←back to thread

215 points ksec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.219s | source
Show context
LeoPanthera ◴[] No.45076431[source]
It's orphaned in Debian as well, but I'm not sure what significant advantages it has over btrfs, which is very stable these days.
replies(1): >>45076586 #
betaby ◴[] No.45076586[source]
btrfs was unusable in multi disk setup for kernels 6.1 and older. Didn't try since then. How's stable btrs today in such setups?

Also see https://www.phoronix.com/news/Josef-Bacik-Leaves-Meta

replies(5): >>45076637 #>>45076834 #>>45076978 #>>45076998 #>>45081574 #
LeoPanthera ◴[] No.45076637[source]
It's sort of frustrating that this constantly comes up. It's true that btrfs does have issues with RAID-5 and RAID-6 configurations, but this is frequently used (not necessarily by you) as some kind of gotcha as to why you shouldn't use it at all. That's insane. I promise that disk spanning issues won't affect your use of it on your tiny ThinkPad SSD.

It's important to note that striping and mirroring works just fine. It's only the 5/6 modes that are unstable: https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/Status.html#block-gro...

replies(5): >>45076707 #>>45076727 #>>45076740 #>>45076809 #>>45077208 #
AaronFriel ◴[] No.45076727[source]
Respectfully to the maintainers:

How can this be a stable filesystem if parity is unstable and risks data loss?

How has this been allowed to happen?

It just seems so profoundly unserious to me.

replies(1): >>45077432 #
wtallis ◴[] No.45077432[source]
Does the whole filesystem need to be marked as unstable if it has a single experimental feature? Is any other filesystem held to that standard?
replies(2): >>45079309 #>>45081095 #
1. nextaccountic ◴[] No.45081095[source]
Maybe this specific feature should be marked as unstable and default to disabled on most kernel builds unless you add something like btrfs.experimental=1 to the kernel line or something