From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ryan C. Underwood" Subject: Re: Several unhappy btrfs's after RAID meltdown Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:04:31 -0600 Message-ID: <20120207140431.GB5639@localhost.localdomain> References: <20120205184128.GC18806@localhost.localdomain> <20120207033945.GA5639@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: nemesis@icequake.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: > > Unfortunately, I am going to have to give up on btrfs if it > > is really so fragile. > > However, complaining about the fragility of a still in development > and > marked experimental filesystem would seem disingenuous at best. [snip paragraphs of tut-tutting] > IOW, yes, btrfs is to be considered fragile at this point. So you re-stated my position. I gave btrfs a chance but it is still apparently far more fragile than ext4 when corruption is introduced -- although btrfs is the filesystem of the two which is specifically designed to provide internal fault tolerance and resilience. Is there a fine line between "user feedback" and "disingenuous complaining" that I am not aware of? The data in question is not that important, though I would like to have it back considering it should mostly still be there as on the ext4 volumes. 40MB of bad sectors on one 2TB disk in a 6TB volume does not seem like a lot. Even if the whole beginning of the volume was wiped out surely there is the equivalent of backup superblocks? I can hack if I could just get a clue where to start. -- Ryan C. Underwood,