From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [195.159.176.226] ([195.159.176.226]:36213 "EHLO blaine.gmane.org" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751792AbeFXPGL (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2018 11:06:11 -0400 Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fX6YV-0000FV-Ni for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 17:03:55 +0200 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Ferry Toth Subject: Re: unsolvable technical issues? Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 17:06 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1c1b0945-81b1-ac6f-2f16-2527ca382d9f@suse.com> <95342f33-dd4e-e143-b2c1-4f526ce84714@dirtcellar.net> <64e632f6-0d26-f8cc-91ff-329eeb28f7f5@aarghimedes.fi> <7309fa6b-d892-cff9-dcdf-639070ea073e@dirtcellar.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: waxhead wrote: > Jukka Larja wrote: >> waxhead wrote 24.6.2018 klo 1.01: >>> Nikolay Borisov wrote: >>>> >>>> On 22.06.2018 02:13, waxhead wrote: >>>>> According to this: >>>>> >>>>> https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf >>>>> Page 4 , section 1.2 >>>>> >>>>> It claims that BTRFS still have significant technical issues that may >>>>> never be resolved. >>>>> Could someone shed some light on exactly what these technical issues >>>>> might be?! What are BTRFS biggest technical problems? >>>> >>>> That's a question that needs to be directed at the author of the >>>> statement. >>>> >>> I think not, and here's why: I am asking the BTRFS developers a >>> general question , with some basis as to why I became curious. The >>> question is simply what (if any) are the biggest technical issues in >>> BTRFS because one must expect that if anyone is going to give me a >>> credible answer it must be the people that hack on BTRFS and >>> understand what they are working on and not the stratis guys. It would >>> surprise me if they knew better than the BTRFS devs. >> >> I think the problem with that question is that it is too general. >> Duncan's post already highlights several things that could be a >> significant problem for some user while being non-issue for most. >> Without more specific problem description, best you can hope for is >> speculation on things that Btrfs currently does badly. >> >> -Jukka Larja > > Well, I still don't agree (apparently I am starting to become > difficult). There is a "roadmap" on the BTRFS wiki that describes > features implemented and feature planned for example. Naturally people > are working on improvements to existing features and prep-work for new > features. If some of this work is not moving ahead due to design issues > it sounds likely that someone would know about it by now. This one doesn't seem to be moving ahead, while it seems like a very promising one: Hot data tracking and moving to faster devices (or provided on the generic VFS layer) It would be really fantastic to just add a ssd to a pool of hdd's and have fsync sensitive stuff run normally (dpkg on raid10 with 50 snapshots currently can take hours to do a few minute job) > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html