Fwd: Re: Response to Bcachefs Claims

Fwd: Re: Response to Bcachefs Claims

[Austin S Hemmelgarn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5059 bytes --]

Forwarding to mailing list.


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Delivered-To: ahferroin7@gmail.com
Received: by 10.37.50.211 with SMTP id y202csp1924867yby;        Tue, 25 
Aug 2015 16:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.68.249.66 with SMTP id 
ys2mr62584006pbc.82.1440544577187;        Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:17 
-0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <suman@rockstor.com>
Received: from d.spam.sonic.net (d.spam.sonic.net. [69.12.208.70]) 
   by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 
vx5si35354577pab.143.2015.08.25.16.16.16        for 
<ahferroin7@gmail.com>        (version=TLSv1.2 
cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);        Tue, 25 Aug 
2015 16:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 69.12.208.70 is neither permitted nor 
denied by best guess record for domain of suman@rockstor.com) 
client-ip=69.12.208.70;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;       spf=neutral (google.com: 
69.12.208.70 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for 
domain of suman@rockstor.com) smtp.mailfrom=suman@rockstor.com
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (a.spam-proxy.sonic.net [69.12.221.245]) 
by d.spam.sonic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t7PNGGMZ009978 
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 
verify=NOT) for <ahferroin7@gmail.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:16 -0700
Received: from mail-vk0-f42.google.com (mail-vk0-f42.google.com 
[209.85.213.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net 
(8.15.1/8.15.1) with ESMTPSA id t7PNGE8V009751 (version=TLSv1.2 
cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for 
<ahferroin7@gmail.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:14 -0700
Received: by vkif69 with SMTP id f69so74864216vki.3        for 
<ahferroin7@gmail.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.189.140 with SMTP id 
gi12mr41615828vdc.53.1440544574156; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.60.10 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55DC8F96.2010506@gmail.com>
References: <1440516154.040713246@apps.rackspace.com> 
<55DC8F96.2010506@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:16:13 -0700
Message-ID: 
<CAPF83mt9GPiLBP_uGUYWVep2uNjixwLQXNKAyNhS28J0iC-mGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Response to Bcachefs Claims
From: Suman Chakravartula <suman@rockstor.com>
To: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Sonic-CAuth: 
UmFuZG9tSVZROrxpATBi5oHFe2nYdIWU4ZYYHtXUHBbtsfTSUojBzNrKpHfLe2++p4q0l4guhROtpQnLYunB+pXXS7EBts8G+zy/e8oy2bI=
X-Sonic-ID: C;XpXWR39L5RGRGIs6ks1aLw== M;UtU4SH9L5RGRGIs6ks1aLw==
X-Spam-Flag: No
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
<ahferroin7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-08-25 11:22, Vincent Olivier wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been using Btrfs for almost a year now with a 16x4TB RAID10 and its
>> 8x4TB RAID0 backup (using incremental snapshots diffs). I have always tried
>> to stay at the latest stable kernel (currently 4.1.6). But I might be moving
>> to Fedora 22 because Centos 7 has significant incompatibilities with the
>> 4.1.x kernel series.
>>
>> I have seen the news about Bcachefs aiming to be Btrfs-complete while
>> being extX-stable.
>>
>> What are the chances Bcachefs beats Btrfs at being the Linux kernel's next
>> "official" file system ? I chose Btrfs over ZFS because it seemed like the
>> only "next-gen" heir to ext4/xfs.
>>
>> I have been having a few problems with Btrfs myself. I have only one that
>> remains unresolved : I haven't found the best way to mount Btrfs at boot
>> time. "LABEL=" won't work for known reasons (I don't understand however why
>> a mount can't do its own "device scan" transparently). "UUID=" won't work
>> for unknown reasons (haven't got a reply on this, maybe it's the same as
>> "LABEL="). And I will use /dev/* in fstab for stability reasons. Right now
>> I'm mounting the fs manually after a "device scan" and picking up the first
>> device that shows up in the "fi show" run. I can "live" with that but I
>> suppose that things like this contribute to the feeling that Btrfs is
>> actually still experimental contrarily to claims that it is
>> production-ready.
>>
>> For my own sake and other's I would like to maintain (if nobody is already
>> working on that nor needs any help) a centralized human-readable digest of
>> known issues that would be featured prominently on top of the Btrfs wiki. I
>> would merge the Gotchas page and the various known issues pages (including
>> the various multi-device mount gotchas here and there).
>>
>> Answers ? Comments ? Help ?
>
> First off, I think this is a wonderful idea.  The list of known issues isn't
> always particularly up to date, and isn't as trivial to find as it should
> be.
>

I think it's a great idea too and would like to contribute. Can
someone please lead the way?

-- 
Suman Chakravartula
Founder @ Rockstor

http://rockstor.com
http://rockstor.com/blog
http://forum.rockstor.com




[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3019 bytes --]