On 10/11/2016 12:33 PM, John Andersen wrote:
IMHO you should not use BTRFS Period. Offers nothing about need and risks everything you put on it.
I Lost data twice, requiring reinstall both times.
When was that, which version, which version kernel? I have no great love for BtrFS and despise its attitude of trying to subsume everything, "all your drives belong to me" approach to the "One File System to rule them all". When it first came out I too lost stuff. But one the design was stabilized, later kernels, well past the version on the 12x and 13.x distribution kernels, it hasn't failed me. I've given up on many of its features. That it requires bigger partitions, that its attitude towards snapshot management need more sysadmin work, the way subvolumes are handled, all annoy me. For the OS, where there is little growth, little further than updates to what already exists, so provisioning is predictable, the ext4 does a damn good job. Ext4 is a fine, an excellent file system for 'rotating rust'. Back in the days of UNIX V6, the 1970s, a mkfs of a disk drive involved pre-provisioning. The ration of inodes to data space was fixed. The layout was simplistic. Even the Berkeley Fast File System from the early 1980s, and compared to the V6/V7 file system it was fast, still had this ratio fixed at mkfs time. Today, the modern, no even the not so modern but still maintained file systems like XFS or 1993 vintage, B-tree based, avoid this problem. Ext4 is b-tree based but still has this archaism. I'm just sorry that Reiser4 seems to require a custom build of the kernel rather than being available as a kernel module. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I haven't been able to find it for that mode. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org