On Saturday, 31 December 2016 11:16:14 CET Lew Wolfgang wrote:
On 12/31/2016 10:33 AM, nicholas wrote:
comparisons to ext thus far seem to be on the
scope of ext etc, not on the
extra features of btrfs. ext will always be easier to use. btrfs can never
win based on the metrics you assume.
placed into to*context* of cost vs benefits, i would be extremly
surprised if the cost of root/update screwups etc is not greater than
problems with btrfs to the typical user.
btrfs itself and opensuse defaults have improved rapidly this year.
not sure anecdotal review and pointing to a minor problem with recent
quotas is enough to condem the system. facebook dont seem to think so.
I'm skeptical about btrfs myself. What are the benefits that will
outweigh the complexity-induced risks? I tried btrfs a few years
ago on a large hardware RAID6 array and experienced filesystem
failures and loss of data when writing more than 16-TB. That experience
and the negative points we've been seeing here convinced me to
continue to use ext-4 on root and xfs everywhere else. I've never
experienced root/update screwups, so where is the value for me
at this point in time? Is it time for me to try it again? If so, why?
My argument was to bring scope and perspective to the argument, my cheer-
leading is aimed at the casual user (who are more likely to screw up and
probably less able to get get a system up again even after relativly minor
breakages - this is especially important on rolling release).
your setup sounds more professional, so im not the one to ask!
but from what you have written a few years is a long time (especially given
first relase 2009). i believe raid 5/6 are still deemed experimental-only by
the developers (for which a big fix is in the works). From literature benefits
include rollbacks, diffs of new vs old files, (new atomic updates), no bitrot,
add/remove space easily, etc...
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org