From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt_Thi=E9bault?= Subject: Re: btrfs, broken design? Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 06:25:09 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1295558324-sup-1046@think> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 To: linux-btrfs Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1295558324-sup-1046@think> List-ID: Thanks for your answer Le 20 janv. 2011 =E0 22:20, Chris Mason a =E9crit : > There was a bug fixed as part of that discussion, and I think I also > better described the way the tree balancing works to Edward. Maybe the wikipedia article should be modified then, because it is not = very reinsuring :-) > A final release? We'll keep improving things for a long time. The > biggest missing feature today is btrfsck, which I'm working on full t= ime > right now. >=20 > -chris Still on the wikipedia page, it's written "Btrfs 1.0 (with finalized on= -disk format) was originally slated for a late 2008 release,[5] but a s= table release has not been made as of January 2011.", which is also ver= y confusing. According to you, is the version of btrfs in 2.6.37 ready for productio= n? I mean, are there still chances that I may loose all my data if I us= e btrfs? Last question, do you know when the RAID-5 like capabilities will be av= ailable? Sorry to ask so many questions, I fully understand you and your team ar= e working very hard on the project, but I was very confused by the Wiki= pedia article. Kind regards, Ben-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html