Comment # 98 on bug 1063638 from
(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)


You are receiving this mail because: