From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:35429 "EHLO mail-wm0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750916AbbL2GZ1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Dec 2015 01:25:27 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f206so1281766wmf.0 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 22:25:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:23:43 -0500 From: Sanidhya Solanki To: Christoph Anton Mitterer Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] BTRFS: Adds an option to select RAID Stripe size Message-ID: <20151228212343.449c8631@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1451368991.7094.45.camel@scientia.net> References: <1451305451-31222-1-git-send-email-jpage.lkml@gmail.com> <1451341195.7094.0.camel@scientia.net> <20151228153801.6561feff@gmail.com> <1451352069.7094.3.camel@scientia.net> <20151228164333.2b8d8336@gmail.com> <1451360528.7094.7.camel@scientia.net> <20151228190336.59a3f440@gmail.com> <1451363188.7094.23.camel@scientia.net> <20151228203111.7ba8b0be@gmail.com> <1451368991.7094.45.camel@scientia.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 07:03:11 +0100 Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Mon, 2015-12-28 at 20:31 -0500, Sanidhya Solanki wrote: > > What is your experience like about running a production system on > > what > > is essentially a beta product? Crashes? > What do you mean? btrfs? I'm not yet running it in production (there > was a subthread recently, where I've explained a bit more why). >>From Documentation/filesystems/BTRFS.txt: Btrfs is under heavy development, and is not suitable for any uses other than benchmarking and review. The Btrfs disk format is not yet finalized. > > Would something like ZFS not be more suited to your environment? > Well I guess that's my personal political decision... I simply think > that btrfs should and will be the next gen Linux main filesystem. > Plus that IIRC zfs-fuse is no unmaintained and linux-zfs not yet part > of Debian rules it anyway out, as I'd be tool lazy to compile it > myself (at least for work ;) ). The kernel module "ZFS on Linux" is still actively developed according to their repo activity (https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs). It is done by a subcontractor for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Considering they are still in preparation for their Next Generation Supercomputer (Summit), we can assume that they will keep financing the development. > > Especially as not all disks will be full, and, if a disk was to > > fail, the entire disk would need to be rebuilt from parity drives > > (as opposed > > to ZFS only using the parity data, and not copying empty blocks > > (another feature that is planned for BTRFS)) > Ah? I thought btrfs would already do that as well? Not yet. Not according to the source code "todo"s atleast. Thanks for the information about HW RAID controllers. > I'm not sure what you mean by "cache"... wouldn't btrfs' CoW mean that > you "just" copy the data, and once this is done, update the metadata > and things would be either consistent or they would not (and in case > of a crash still point to the old, not yet reshaped, data)? > > A special case were of course nodatacow'ed data.... there one may need > some kind of cache or journal... (see the other thread of mine, where > I ask for checksumming with no-CoWed data =) ). I just started working recently on BTRFS, I forgot about the CoW part. Thanks