2016-07-08 17:55 GMT+03:00 <german...@ya.ru>: > I value stability of a FS over other considerations like shiny new features > and performance. I know that Debian Stable includes only that versions of > software that were considered rock-solid and mostly bug-free. But on the > other hand I read documentation for version of a Linux kernel of Debian > Stable and it says that btrfs is under heavy development and isn't suitable > for any uses other than benchmarking and review. Proof-link: > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt?id=refs/tags/v3.16.36
For the sake of defending BTRFS I'd like to point out that the latest version of that file looks quite different: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt I've been using BTRFS for 2-3 years now, and it's checksumming/raid capabilities has saved my from failing disks twice, and it's 'change raid level on the fly' -feature (not available in zfs) has saved my ass on a production machine once. OpenSUSE uses btrfs by default, the Jolla phone has btrfs / by default and both SUSE and RedHat support it officially in their latest releases. On SSD disks it can even outperform ext4 in certain scenarios: https://www.mayrhofer.eu.org/ssd-linux-benchmark Yes, btrfs in kernel 3.16-18 might still be unstable, but since then it is got some important fixes, it is production ready and is actually pretty amazing in many ways.
