From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]:36908 "EHLO mail-wm0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752787AbcBJKQE (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:16:04 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id g62so19773372wme.0 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 02:16:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: BTRFS RAM requirements, RAID 6 stability/write holes and expansion questions To: Mackenzie Meyer , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: From: Psalle Message-ID: <56BB0DE0.5020102@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:16:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/02/16 20:36, Mackenzie Meyer wrote: > RAID 6 stability? I'll say more: currently, btrfs is in a state of flux where if you don't have a very recent kernel that's the first recommendation you're going to receive in case of problems. This means going out of stable packages in most distros. Once you're in the bleeding kernel edge, you are obviously more likely to run into undiscovered bugs. I even see here people that has to patch the kernel with still non-mainline patches when trying to recover. So don't for anything but testing.