From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:36332 "EHLO mail-wm0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932538AbcFCNrf (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Jun 2016 09:47:35 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n184so126995763wmn.1 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2016 06:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Recommended why to use btrfs for production? To: Martin References: Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Julian Taylor Message-ID: <57518A73.5030201@googlemail.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:47:31 +0200 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 06/03/2016 03:31 PM, Martin wrote: >> In general, avoid Ubuntu LTS versions when dealing with BTRFS, as well as >> most enterprise distros, they all tend to back-port patches instead of using >> newer kernels, which means it's functionally impossible to provide good >> support for them here (because we can't know for sure what exactly they've >> back-ported). I'd suggest building your own kernel if possible, with Arch >> Linux being a close second (they follow upstream very closely), followed by >> Fedora and non-LTS Ubuntu. > > Then I would build my own, if that is the preferred option. > Ubuntu also provides newer kernels for their LTS via the Hardware Enablement Stack: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack So if you can live with about 6 month time lag and shorter support for the non-lts versions of those kernels that is a good option. As you can see 16.04 currently provides 4.4 and the next update will likely be 4.8.