From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:38939 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750944AbaAJPxr (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:53:47 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W1eP3-0008Mb-Uo for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:53:45 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:53:45 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 16:53:45 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: backpointer mismatch Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 15:53:19 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <52CF7032.3090004@oma.be> <20140110211659.2bc9e1d7@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Roman Mamedov posted on Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:16:59 +0600 as excerpted: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:26:19 +0000 (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > >> IOW, your backups shouldn't be btrfs, because btrfs itself is testing, >> and any data stored on it is by definition testing-only data you don't >> particularly care about, either because you have good tested-restorable >> backups, or because the data really isn't that valuable to you in the >> first place. > > On the contrary, I think a backup storage area is an excellent place to > start rolling-out btrfs from, because: > > 1) the snapshot capability Point agreed. =:^) > 2) it's *backups*, by definition it's non-unique replaceable data that > also exists elsewhere (and in this case on the primary storage, that's > probably much less experimental and more redundant as well). > > My primary storage is currently Ext4 and backups are all on btrfs. But what happens if you actually /need/ those backups, and in going to use them, you find they're bugged due to some as yet unfixed bug in still under development btrfs? To me, the /point/ of backups is reliability. I need to *KNOW* they're reliable, and btrfs simply isn't intended or claimed to provide that guaranteed stable reliability yet. While admittedly a lot of people are now using btrfs without issue, and I'm using it here myself as my primary/working copy as well as first level backup (with off-btrfs backups to my first-level btrfs backups), I simply couldn't rest well if I were using it for (all level) backups, because it simply doesn't provide the proven over years level of stability and reliability that for me is the whole /point/ of backups (otherwise, why bother?), yet. Never-the-less, if you're comfortable with that level of additional risk in your backups, it's your system and your data at risk, so more power to you! =:^) But IMO, /recommending/ btrfs for backups at this point (regardless of what I was or was not doing myself, accepting the brown-bag should my decision for my own data turn out to have been a bad one) is nothing other than irresponsible, and as such I could never do it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman