Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

Peter Robinson pbrobinson at
Fri Feb 25 09:06:47 UTC 2011

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler at> wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>> Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
>>> btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latter.
>> BTRFS so far only makes my kernel panicking as it did anytime I have
>> been trying it since Fedora 9 (yes, I am crazy). This is absolutely not
>> meant as anything personal against Josef (I know very well how
>> incredibly small group are BTRFS developers), but just a bit of
>> suspicion, whether "we have fsck now (or we will have fsck soon)" really
>> leads so quickly "let's make it default".
>> I am quite OK with having crashing and unstable systemd or Gnome 3 (and
>> again, nothing against their developers, this is Rawhide and Fedora, so
>> when my kids are alive despite me using it I am pretty happy), but
>> unstable file system is quite a different matter.
>> Could we slow down a bit, please?
>> Matěj
> Can we have pointers to these crashes or BZ reports please? As Josef has noted,
> btrfs has been quite stable in our testing and we are certainly going to pursue
> any reports.
> Also note that the btrfs community of developers is not so small these days and
> rivals (if not surpasses) the size of the team working on ext4.
> Just to answer your last question,  we do not intend to "slow it down".  Rather,
> we hope to speed it up considerably by adding developers, testing and users :)

I've seen a number of crashes using 2.6.37 on a Dell 6410 using btrfs
in a luks encrypted LVM volume. Sometimes its a message in dmesg,
other times an out right crash. Each time it happens I submit the
kernel oops using abrt, but unlike RHBZ reports you don't get a URL
for the report so I have no idea where they get reported to but it
might be worthwhile reviewing that information where ever it ends up.


More information about the devel mailing list