linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rich Freeman <r-btrfs@thefreemanclan.net>
To: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>
Cc: Sjoerd <sjoerd@sjomar.eu>, Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Latest kernel to use?
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:12:15 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_nFn=AH6Y-4dFQEmy42KVJLBvLuaEHRtoYrBDUtNategw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56052E0D.3090702@gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
<ahferroin7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-09-24 17:07, Sjoerd wrote:
>>
>> Maybe a silly question for most of you, but the wiki states to always try
>> to
>> use the latest kernel with btrfs. Which one would be best:
>> - 4.2.1 (currently latest stable and matches the btrfs-progs versioning)
>> or
>> - the 4.3.x (mainline)?
>>
>> Stable sounds more stable to me(hence the name ;) ), but the mainline
>> kernel
>> seems to be in more active development?
>>
> Like Hugo said, 4.2.1 is what you want right now.  In general, go with the
> highest version number that isn't a -rc version (4.3 isn't actually released
> yet, IIRC they're up to 4.3-rc2 right now, and almost at -rc3) (we should
> probably be specific like this on the wiki).
>

I'll just say that my btrfs stability has gone WAY up when I stopped
following this advice and instead followed a recent longterm.  Right
now I'm following 3.18.  There were some really bad corruption issues
in 3.17/18/19 that burned me, and today while considering moving up to
4.1 I'm still seeing a lot of threads about issues during balance/etc.
I still run into the odd issue with 3.18, but not nearly to the degree
that I used to.

Now, I would stick with a recent longterm.  The older longterms go
back to a time when btrfs was far more experimental.  Even 3.16
probably has a lot of issues that are fixed in 3.18.

That said, if you do run into an issue on a longterm kernel nobody
around here is likely to be able to help you much unless you can
reproduce it on the most recent stable kernel.

Just tossing that out as an alternative opinion.  Right now I'm
sticking with 3.18, but I'm interested in making the 4.1 switch once
issues with that seem to have died down.

--
Rich

  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-25 13:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-24 21:07 Latest kernel to use? Sjoerd
2015-09-24 21:18 ` Hugo Mills
2015-09-25 11:20 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn
2015-09-25 13:12   ` Rich Freeman [this message]
2015-09-25 13:43     ` Roman Mamedov
     [not found]     ` <CAEp_DRB7zaHmJnghJzVR++_OO+4mrM_+jCjrYAQJcNUXpM=bAQ@mail.gmail.com>
2015-09-25 17:00       ` Rich Freeman
2015-09-25 17:41         ` Bostjan Skufca
2015-09-25 13:36 ` Sjoerd
2015-09-25 13:51   ` Hugo Mills
2015-09-25 14:34     ` Bostjan Skufca
2015-09-26  2:04       ` Duncan
2015-09-25 14:35     ` Sjoerd

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAGfcS_nFn=AH6Y-4dFQEmy42KVJLBvLuaEHRtoYrBDUtNategw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=r-btrfs@thefreemanclan.net \
    --cc=ahferroin7@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sjoerd@sjomar.eu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).