(In reply to Oliver Kurz from comment #96) > > If you want to help then try to provide either better tests or proposals for > fixes. I have not seen any contributions of that kind rejected. > This is ridiculous. So you would like to play the game that the problem doesn't exist unless it hits your computer ? omg I've already (and other ppl as well) provided proposals and insight, only what I can do is to repeat myself (and MANY other ppl discussing that on internet, just google that): 1) requirement for btrfs balance is completely situational and it is normally NOT needed to run that regularly !!! having this hammer-style operation as default is insane and uncompetent. 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. It's painfully wrong to have it as generic default done on scheduled basis for everybody and - I dare to say - it just confirms the lack of experience and understanding to the problem, exactly as Harald Achitz said. endnote proposal: kick it away, this shall NOT be default. regards, dan ps: ``requirement for btrfs balance is completely situational and it is normally NOT needed to run that regularly !!! having this hammer-style operation as default is insane and uncompetent.'' - I considered this so important, that I had to repeat that again (I know certain ppl like/need things being repeated)