If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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)
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.
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 bugzilla.kernel.org)?