On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 1:25 PM Antti <antti.aspinen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
However the most commendable thing he wrote here is the part where he honestly admits
that they also do have many real data loss bugs in btrfs and wishes that people would not
spread rumors of non-existential ones.
I asked him about the "have" comment in that email today on #btrfs and
he said the intent was "have had".
My point being that there are unresolved major issues in btrfs which
should be fixed before Fedora can even consider making btrfs the default file system.
Can you be more specific about what major issues you think are unresolved?
But btrfs is still not invisible. Meaning that when I do use it I
actively have to think about using btrfs-check, btrfs-balance, btrfs-filesystem, etc.
Why? Those are used in specific situations, they're not routinely
needed. I do not baby sit my file systems with any of these. I don't
ever balance my file systems. Running check isn't needed as some sort
of precaution, if the file system mounts without complaint. For used
and free space reporting I use 'df' and 'du' just like any other file
system.
every now and then and cannot just use the system without a worry of
something breaking up. And as a person who likes Fedora, who wants more people using
Fedora, I also worry about the user experience and how btrfs is going to change the life
for users if it becomes the default choice.
I expect the vast majority of users will benefit from the change. As
stated elsewhere in these threads, I expect the pattern of problems to
be different between Btrfs and ext4. But the idea there are no
problems at all whatsoever under ext4 ignores all the benefits in the
proposal, and runs for cover under merely what we are used to.
--
Chris Murphy