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:

<snip>

>>> 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. 
>>> Thanks,

What was the reason we did not drop lvm altogether and went for a full 
btrfs only partitioning scheme as the default?

JBG


More information about the devel mailing list