From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:37185 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751374AbaLaEA3 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Dec 2014 23:00:29 -0500 Message-ID: <54A374C1.2030401@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 12:00:01 +0800 From: Qu Wenruo MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Stevens , Btrfs BTRFS Subject: Re: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server? References: <20141230192910.50345rkrnf3a8akm@webmail.uniserve.com> In-Reply-To: <20141230192910.50345rkrnf3a8akm@webmail.uniserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Dave, -------- Original Message -------- Subject: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server? From: Dave Stevens To: Btrfs BTRFS Date: 2014年12月31日 11:29 > I have a well tested and working fine Centos5-Xen system. Accumulated > cruft from various development efforts make it desirable to redo the > install. Currently a RAID-10 ext4 filesystem with LVM and 750G of > storage. There's a hot spare 750 drive in the system. > > I'm thinking of migrating the web sites (almost the only use of the > server) to a spare then installing Centos-7 and btrfs, then migrating > the sites back. > > I see RH marks btrfs in C7 as a technology preview but don't > understand what that implies for future support and a suitably stable > basis for storage. Technology preview means no full official Red Hat support, just preview for technology. https://access.redhat.com/support/offerings/techpreview It may comes to full support in later version if it matures. > > The demand on the system is low and not likely to change in the near > future, storage access speeds are not likely to be dealbreakers and it > would be nice to not need to use LVM, btrfs seems to have a better > feature set and more intuitive command set. But I'm uncertain about > stability. Anyone have an opinion? If I am sysadmin, I will still prefer the mature linux soft raid/LVM. Less bug, mature kernel/user-land tools and use case,and you don't need to always update kernel/btrfs-progs to address known bugs or fix corrupted fs (if stay away from scrub/replace/balance/almost-full-disk/sudden-power-failure, it will shouldn't happen though) But, if you want to contribute to btrfs, such production environment may expose some problem we didn't find. Although you may take a lot time compiling latest kernel/btrfs-progs and doing btrfs-image dump, not to mention the offline time... Thanks, Qu > > Dave >