<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rjones@redhat.com" target="_blank">rjones@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><div class="h5">On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 03:36:10PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <<a href="mailto:rjones@redhat.com">rjones@redhat.com</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:12:34AM -0800, Zach Brown wrote:<br>
> > > > So there are a couple of issues with btrfs which I believe absolutely<br>
> > > > must be fixed before it can become the default<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I'd agree, though I'd have a different list of pet bugs.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > But that's a subjective judgement. I'd be the first to admit that I'm<br>
> > > pretty risk averse, especially when it comes to losing data and<br>
> > > rendering machines unbootable.<br>
> ><br>
> > I think both of us are making a subjective judgement. For myself, I<br>
> > "want to believe" in btrfs, having championed immutable<br>
> > state/wandering trees, and real databases for many years.<br>
> ><br>
> > BUT I'm deeply unhappy about data corrupting bugs being effectively<br>
> > ignored by upstream for months. That's not good.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> I see no data corruption bugs that have been reported that are being<br>
> ignored, link to the email? The invalidate stuff was causing problems (not<br>
> a btrfs problem, we just got hurt by it the most), and it looks like those<br>
> were cleared up. I'm working on the only data corruption problem I know of<br>
> at the moment and it's not super clear its a data corruption problem.<br>
<br>
</div></div>The link is:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863978" target="_blank">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863978</a><br>
<br>
Reported upstream here:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/20257" target="_blank">http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/20257</a><br>
<br>
I'd love this to have been fixed upstream somewhere. It is still<br>
affecting Fedora, but we can pull in the fix if you can point to it.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Rich.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat <a href="http://people.redhat.com/~rjones" target="_blank">http://people.redhat.com/~rjones</a><br>
</div>Read my programming blog: <a href="http://rwmj.wordpress.com" target="_blank">http://rwmj.wordpress.com</a><br>
Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5">--<br>
devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Maybe is not good idea. Wait when btrfs launch officialy a least 1 stable version, because nothing 1 release yet.<br clear="all">
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br>-- <br>Álvaro Castillo<br><br>Fedora Project, EMEA ambassador<br><a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Netsys" target="_blank">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Netsys</a><br>Linux user #547784
</div></div>