From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Problem with file system
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 01:58:48 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan$ee545$db8b9e33$aca1e421$80413db9@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: CAH=dxU4OV6tQ0hCy_0Ug7eqkOM7HTUWTKjAr4qg+uO2gVxk2Jw@mail.gmail.com
Dave posted on Sun, 29 Oct 2017 23:31:57 -0400 as excerpted:
> It's all part of the process of gaining critical experience with BTRFS.
> Whether or not BTRFS is ready for production use is (it seems to me)
> mostly a question of how knowledgeable and experienced are the people
> administering it.
>
> In the various online discussions on this topic, all the focus is on
> whether or not BTRFS itself is production-ready. At the current maturity
> level of BTRFS, I think that's the wrong focus. The right focus is on
> how production-ready is the admin person or team (with respect to their
> BTRFS knowledge and experience). When a filesystem has been around for
> decades, most of the critical admin issues become fairly common
> knowledge, fairly widely known and easy to find. When a filesystem is
> newer, far fewer people understand the gotchas. Also, in older or widely
> used filesystems, when someone hits a gotcha, the response isn't "that
> filesystem is not ready for production". Instead the response is, "you
> should have known not to do that."
That's a view I hadn't seen before, but it seems reasonable and I like it.
Indeed, there were/are a few reasonably widely known caveats with both
ext3 and reiserfs, for instance, and certainly some that apply to fat/
vfat/fat32, the three filesystems other than btrfs I know most about, and
if anything they're past their prime, /not/ "still maturing", as btrfs is
typically described. For example, setting either of the two to writeback
journaling and then losing data results in something akin to "you should
have known not to do that unless you were prepared for the risk, as it's
definitely a well known one."
Which of course was about my own reaction when Linus and the other powers
that be decided to set ext3 to writeback journaling by default for a few
kernel cycles. Having lived thru that on reiserfs, I /knew/ where /that/
was headed, and sure enough...
Similarly, ext3's performance problems with fsync, because it effectively
forces a full filesystem sync not just a file sync, are well known, as
are the risks of storing a reiserfs in a loopback file on reiserfs and
then trying to run a tree restore on the host, since it's known to mix up
the two filesystems in that case.
It's thus a reasonable viewpoint to consider some of the btrfs quirks to
be in the same category. Of course btrfs being the first COW-based-fs
most will have had experience with, and the first filesystem most will
have experienced that handles raid, snapshotting, etc, it's definitely
rather different and more complex than the filesystems most people are
familiar with, and thus can only be expected to have rather different and
more complex caveats than the filesystems most are familiar with, as well.
OTOH, there's definitely some known low-hanging-fruit in terms of ease of
use, remaining to be implemented, tho I'd argue that we've reached the
point where general stability is such that it has allowed the focus to
gradually tilt toward implementing some of this, over the last year or
so, and we're beginning to see the loose ends tied up in the
documentation, for instance. I'd say we are getting close, and your
viewpoint is a definite argument in support of that.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-31 1:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-24 15:27 Problem with file system Fred Van Andel
2017-04-24 17:02 ` Chris Murphy
2017-04-25 4:05 ` Duncan
2017-04-25 0:26 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-04-25 5:33 ` Marat Khalili
2017-04-25 6:13 ` Qu Wenruo
2017-04-26 16:43 ` Fred Van Andel
2017-10-30 3:31 ` Dave
2017-10-30 21:37 ` Chris Murphy
2017-10-31 5:57 ` Marat Khalili
2017-10-31 11:28 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-11-03 7:42 ` Kai Krakow
2017-11-03 11:33 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-11-03 22:03 ` Chris Murphy
2017-11-04 4:46 ` Adam Borowski
2017-11-04 12:00 ` Marat Khalili
2017-11-04 17:14 ` Chris Murphy
2017-11-06 13:29 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-11-06 18:45 ` Chris Murphy
2017-11-06 19:12 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-11-04 7:26 ` Dave
2017-11-04 17:25 ` Chris Murphy
2017-11-07 7:01 ` Dave
2017-11-07 13:02 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-11-08 4:50 ` Chris Murphy
2017-11-08 12:13 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-11-08 17:17 ` Chris Murphy
2017-11-08 17:22 ` Hugo Mills
2017-11-08 17:54 ` Chris Murphy
2017-11-08 18:10 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-11-08 18:31 ` Chris Murphy
2017-11-08 19:29 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2017-10-31 1:58 ` Duncan [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='pan$ee545$db8b9e33$aca1e421$80413db9@cox.net' \
--to=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.