No announcement yet.

Testing Out The Btrfs Mount Options On Linux 3.2

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by gilboa View Post
    @Kamikaze and rrohbeck:

    I'm not trying to mock your personal experience, far from it.
    But please keep in mind that when it comes to file system corruption, "WORKS-FOR-ME" reports carry *far* less weight than corruption reports - even if only 1/1000 suffers from a catastrophic report. (And by looking at the Fedora bugzilla, btrfs has yet to reach 1/1000 level)

    - Gilboa
    Valid argument.

    Also remember that running in production in a critical business is another thing than running BTRFS at home. If you bet money, you want to go as safe as possible and minimize the risk.


    • #22

      Originally posted by stan View Post
      OK, so let's talk reliability. As it stands, BTRFS is much more prone to corruption and gradual degradation of speed and even available free spance than EXT4. Just look at all the reports of people saying BTRFS becomes unusable after a a few days of running. The fact is that for the vast majority of desktop users, BTRFS still has no advantage over EXT4.
      Performance degradation is exactly what I'm experiencing:: Random apps often stall for many seconds while one or more cores are in I/O wait and no paging takes plae.
      I even updated the kernel from 3.1 to 3.3 and performance degradation happened again within some days.
      Could you give links to bug reports on this (I have difficulties to identify the correct one at