On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 2:01 PM Josef Bacik <jo...@toxicpanda.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/20 4:53 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 1:23 PM Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com > > <mailto:li...@colorremedies.com>> wrote: > > > > > > The proposal has nothing to do with raid56, let alone by default. The > > installer doesn't offer it as an option. And it's not relevant to the > > desktop. We're talking about single device btrfs file systems. > > > > Isn't the proposal talking about BTRFS as a default for workstations? > Are you > > saying that Anaconda is just going to check to see if a PC has only one > hard > > drive and then install BTRFS there, but if it has two devices use > something > > else? Why would we be installing something by default that has widely > known > > broken functionality? I would think it would be more appropriate to > have people > > who specifically want to use BTRFS functionality and are aware and > knowledgeable > > of the risks to seek it out rather than have it be some sort of > selective > > default. The target audience you're aiming at by making it the default > doesn't > > know FAT from NTFS from EXT4 from XFS from BTRFS or do they care. > Neither are > > they aware or even care about purported benefits. > > > > > > > So, BTRFS is great, ready for prime time... many people are using > it, > > etc. etc. etc. until something goes wrong and then you get... well, > it's > > experimental and not intended for production. Sucks to be you. > > > > The raid56 criticism is relevant to raid56 use cases. What you're > > doing above is an association fallacy. > > > > > > Actually no, this doesn't apply to just raid56. I haven't seen where > BTRFS has > > been declared production ready. It's always been this or that feature > is OK, > > another feature is mostly OK, or don't use this feature. Then when > something > > goes wrong, the response is it's still experimental and not intended for > > production workloads. People then mention Facebook uses it... but my > > understanding is that Facebook is "testing it in production". They > don't RELY > > on it in production. Why do we want to push something out like that as > a default? > > Huh? We absolutely rely on it in production, our whole container system > is > built around it. It's literally the only thing that works with IO > isolation > with cgroups. IDK where you're getting your information, but its wrong. > It's > deployed on millions of machines, most of our infrastructure is built > around > using multiple core features. Thanks, > > Actually, I got my information here: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users Since you're responding here now, I'm assuming you're speaking officially for the BTRFS project. Could you please either give the up-to-date official status or point me to some project information that has been kept current? So you're saying now that BTRFS is now officially production ready?
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
