From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:41071 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756375Ab3D1CyI (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:54:08 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UWHkb-00066w-EN for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 04:54:05 +0200 Received: from rain.gmane.org ([80.91.229.7]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 04:54:05 +0200 Received: from eternaleye by rain.gmane.org with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 04:54:05 +0200 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Alex Elsayed Subject: Re: data DUP Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:53:59 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20130420204814.GN7639@carfax.org.uk> <20130420212311.GO7639@carfax.org.uk> <1367098836.14073.5.camel@ayu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Roger Binns wrote: > On 27/04/13 14:40, Calvin Walton wrote: >> Unfortunately, bugfixes in btrfs have tended to be *not* backported; >> aside from a few special cases, ... > > Your efforts to scare me are admirable, but have failed :-) > > As btrfs development has progressed, the probability of a random user like > me hitting bugs keeps decreasing. This is a reflection of the maturity of > the code base, the increasing number of users, improved test suites, more > eyes on the code, more diversity in uses etc. As far as I can see, > backported bugfixes are made when the probability of a bug being > encountered is significantly higher than the current probabilities, and > that is why they are rare. > > As for the severity of the rarely hit bugs, the COW nature of the data > means there is unlikely to be corruption, and if there is then of the most > recent activity. Additionally the checksums mean it is possible to > proactively verify (online) that unexpected corruption hasn't been > creeping in. > > And if all that fails, I have multiple layers of backups. I would be *very* hard-pressed to see it as an attempt to scare you - he's just saying what is (very consistently) said to others on this list: When using btrfs, run a recent kernel :P. Honestly, even leaving aside the lack of backporting, there are other benefits to a recent kernel - things like cross-subvolume reflinks, btrfs device replace support being far more efficient than add/balance/remove/balance, and a bunch more.