From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.216.43]:63832 "EHLO mail-qa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755576AbaHVDk4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:40:56 -0400 Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id w8so9368248qac.30 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:40:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2217061.yFV10mnZWq@merkaba> References: <2217061.yFV10mnZWq@merkaba> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:10:55 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Significance of high number of mails on this list? From: Shriramana Sharma To: Martin Steigerwald Cc: linux-btrfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello people. Thank you for your detailed replies, esp Duncan. In essence, I plan on using BTRFS for my production data -- mainly programs/documents I write in connection with my academic research. I'm not a professional sysadmin and I'm not running a business server. I'm just managing my own data, and as I have mentioned, my chief reason for looking at BTRFS is the ease of snapshots and backups using send/receive. It is clear now that snapshots are by and large stable but send/receive is not. But, IIUC, even if send/receive fails I still have the older data which is not overwritten due to COW and atomic operations, and I can always retry send/receive again. Is this correct? If yes, then I guess I can take the plunge but ensure I have daily backups (which BTRFS itself should help me do easily). -- Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा