From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39070 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752567AbdKNSvK (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:51:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 19:49:16 +0100 From: David Sterba To: Martin Steigerwald Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Read before you deploy btrfs + zstd Message-ID: <20171114184915.GI28899@twin.jikos.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <20171113225046.GD28899@suse.cz> <3013353.6rxLtS64S0@merkaba> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3013353.6rxLtS64S0@merkaba> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 08:34:37AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Hello David. > > David Sterba - 13.11.17, 23:50: > > while 4.14 is still fresh, let me address some concerns I've seen on linux > > forums already. > > > > The newly added ZSTD support is a feature that has broader impact than > > just the runtime compression. The btrfs-progs understand filesystem with > > ZSTD since 4.13. The remaining key part is the bootloader. > > > > Up to now, there are no bootloaders supporting ZSTD. This could lead to an > > unmountable filesystem if the critical files under /boot get accidentally > > or intentionally compressed by ZSTD. > > But otherwise ZSTD is safe to use? Are you aware of any other issues? No issues from my own testing or reported by other users.