Comment # 100 on bug 1063638 from Daniel Pecka

(In reply to Oliver Kurz from comment #99)
> (In reply to Daniel Pecka from comment #98)
> > [���] I dare to say - it just confirms the lack of experience and
> > understanding to the problem, exactly as Harald Achitz said.
> 
> I did not doubt that. I am *just* a stupid QA engineer, no kernel filesystem
> hacking expert :) -> see who is reporter and who is assignee

if you wish to take it personally THIS way, please make the outcome other than
just words ..

I have to repeat myself:

1) requirement for btrfs balance is completely situational and it is normally
NOT needed to run that regularly (moreover at generic basis as default for
everybody)

2) it severely decreases the lifetime of hardrives and it makes possible
unhealthy drives to fail earlier and suddenly because it rewrites huge amounts
of data unnecessarily and it's very very intensive operation.

^^ beyond it's easy to reproduce that, it's very very easy to understand at
least to point #2 and adopt it

dan