BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
johannbg at gmail.com
Thu Jul 14 12:45:50 UTC 2011
On 07/14/2011 01:07 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Reindl Harald<h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>> Am 13.07.2011 23:54, schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
>>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>> That's not the case at all, I'm not sure where you are getting that.
>>> If we don't have a released offline fsck by Alpha, which IIRC is the
>>> beginning of August we're not even going to make the switch. We
>>> aren't aiming for "hopefully stable", we're aiming for actually
>>> stable and reasonably safe. If we don't meet certain basic
>>> requirements no switch will be made and everything will carry on as
>>> normal. I'm not trying to shove Btrfs down peoples throats. The last
>>> thing I want is to switch over to Btrfs before it's fully ready for
>>> everybody to be using it, which is why there are a bunch of
>>> requirements that need to be met before the switch is actually met.
What was the reason we did not drop lvm altogether and went for a full
btrfs only partitioning scheme as the default?
More information about the devel