From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f51.google.com ([209.85.214.51]:37321 "EHLO mail-it0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755550AbdBQNFD (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:05:03 -0500 Received: by mail-it0-f51.google.com with SMTP id x75so13861437itb.0 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:05:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [191.9.206.254] (rrcs-70-62-41-24.central.biz.rr.com. [70.62.41.24]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p82sm519112itg.15.2017.02.17.05.05.00 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 05:05:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Opps.. Should be 4.9/4.10 Experiences To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:04:55 -0500 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 2017-02-17 03:26, Duncan wrote: > Imran Geriskovan posted on Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:42:09 +0200 as excerpted: > >> Opps.. I mean 4.9/4.10 Experiences >> >> On 2/16/17, Imran Geriskovan wrote: >>> What are your experiences for btrfs regarding 4.10 and 4.11 kernels? >>> I'm still on 4.8.x. I'd be happy to hear from anyone using 4.1x for a >>> very typical single disk setup. Are they reasonably stable/good enough >>> for this case? > > I ran 4.9 and have been on 4.10 since before rc1. Btrfs has been fine > here, tho there have been some late rc7/8 fixes. I've had and still have > some 4.10 issues, but they're amdgpu, not btrfs related. (Unfortunately, > between working long hours and being sick partly as a result, I've had > little time to report them, but booting with amdgpu.dpm=0 has let me > continue running 4.10-git, tho I don't know exactly why if I'm not going > to have time to report problems anyway.) > FWIW, I've had largely similar experiences since about 4.0. I'm also not using anything more complicated than raid1/raid0, and I stay on top of monitoring for all my systems, but even accounting for that, I've had no BTRFS issues that caused anything beyond minor inconvenience (that is, no data loss, nothing that would have required taking the system completely off-line to fix if it was the root filesystem, and no crashes arising from BTRFS itself). From what I've seen though, as long as you stay up to date and don't do much more complicated than a raid1 or raid0 setup, don't use qgroups (they're technically working, but they still have a significant performance impact) and don't use lots of snapshots, you should be relatively fine.