From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:55750 "EHLO relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753160Ab2KKQCR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:02:17 -0500 Message-ID: <509FCC05.9050108@petaramesh.org> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:02:13 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?U3fDom1pIFBldGFyYW1lc2g=?= MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bart Noordervliet CC: "BTRFS, Linux" Subject: Re: BTRFS cache problem References: <509ED1D6.8010903@petaramesh.org> <509FB2A0.4030504@petaramesh.org> <509FB5AE.3030504@petaramesh.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 11/11/2012 16:13, Bart Noordervliet a écrit : > May I also suggest that you maybe shouldn't be running an experimental > filesystem on a laptop that you can't go without? I might well be retired before BTRFS is no more "experimental", but I need its features now... Otherwise I could go with “ZFS on Linux” that has proven fairly excellent and much faster and more stable than BTRFS on the machine on which I've been using it for ~2 years... I chosed to go for BTRFS on this machine because it's officially part of the Linux kernel and I would expect it to improve (quickly) over time... But for now I have to admit that I regret my choice performance wise (which is terrible...) and stability wise (Already 2 reinstalls with complete format, if there's a next one, the next one will be ZFS...) Kind regards. -- Swâmi Petaramesh http://petaramesh.org PGP 9076E32E Ne cherchez pas : Je ne suis pas sur Facebook.