From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f176.google.com ([209.85.220.176]:35942 "EHLO mail-qk0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750923AbbHQTSu (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:18:50 -0400 Received: by qkdv3 with SMTP id v3so50047378qkd.3 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:18:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Tyler Bletsch Subject: Re: Btrfs is amazing! (a lack-of-bug report) To: Austin S Hemmelgarn , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <55D1567B.3030809@gmail.com> <55D1CA1E.1060103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55D23397.6090404@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:18:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55D1CA1E.1060103@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thanks. I will be trying raid5 in production, but "production" in this case just means my home file server, with btrfs snapshot+sync for all data and appropriate offsite non-btrfs backups for critical data. If it hoses up, I'll post a bug report. Going to try to avoid LVM, since half the appeal of btrfs for me is getting away from the multiple duct-taped layers of indirection that I you get currently with ext4/MD/LVM setups. - Tyler On 8/17/2015 7:48 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-08-16 23:35, Tyler Bletsch wrote: >> I just wanted to drop you guys a line to say that I am stunned with how >> excellent btrfs is. I did some testing, and the things that it did were >> amazing. I took a 4-disk RAID 5 and walked it all the way down to a >> one-disk volume and back again, mixed in devices of different sizes in >> different modes, balanced it in every direction, trashed data on drives >> without the OS knowing, and did every other form of torture I could >> think of, all while looping file integrity tests, and it was perfect. >> >> The ease of use and simplicity were great. I was dreading having to >> administer ZFS in order to get snapshots and other features, but now I >> don't have to. With the exception of enterprisey features like SSD >> intent logs and stuff, it is hands down far better than ZFS. >> >> Thanks for the great work! >> > It's nice to hear success stories for once. I would suggest being > careful of using BTRFS raid5 or raid6 in production, there are > probably still bugs that haven't yet been discovered. Secondarily, if > you can deal with slightly more setup and maintenance overhead, BTRFS > works _very_ well on top of LVM (it makes online data migration much > easier, and provides easy ways to do layered RAID setups). > >