From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from 220-245-31-42.static.tpgi.com.au ([220.245.31.42]:50364 "EHLO smtp.sws.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752250AbbDDMzN (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Apr 2015 08:55:13 -0400 From: Russell Coker To: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: Btrfs hangs 3.19-10 Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2015 12:55:08 +0000 Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20150402191312.1ee31af3@natsu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <201504041255.08052.russell@coker.com.au> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 05:14:12 AM Duncan wrote: > Well, btrfs itself isn't really stable yet... Stable series should be > stable at least to the extent that whatever you're using in them is, but > with btrfs itself not yet entirely stable... Also for stable operation you want both forward and backward compatability. You could make an Ext3 filesystem and expect that any random ancient Linux box you are likely to encounter can read it. Even Ext4 has been supported for a long time and most systems you are likely to encounter won't have any problems with it. I recently made a BTRFS filesystem on a Debian/Jessie system (kernel 3.16.7) with default options and discovered that Debian/Wheezy (kernel 3.2.65) can't read it. I think that one criteria for "stable" in a filesystem is that kernels from a couple of previous releases can mount it. By that criteria BTRFS won't be "stable" for use in Debian for about 4 years. As an aside are there options to mkfs.btrfs that would make a filesystem mountable by kernel 3.2.65? If so I'll file a Debian/Jessie bug report requesting that a specific mention be added to the man page. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/