On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 16:49, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 1:57 PM Eric Sandeen <sand...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On 7/9/20 2:11 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > >> > > >> From what I've gathered from these responses, btrfs is unique in that > > >> it is > > >> /expected/ that if anything goes wrong, the administrator should be > > >> prepared > > >> to scrape out remaining data, re-mkfs, and start over. If that's > > >> acceptable > > >> for the Fedora desktop, that's fine, but I consider it a risk that > > >> should not > > >> be ignored when evaluating this proposal. > > >> > > > > > > Agreed, it's the very first thing I said when I was asked what are the > > > downsides. There's clearly more work to be done in the recovery arena. > > > How often do disks fail for Fedora? Do we have that data? Is this a > > > real risk? Nobody can say because Fedora doesn't have data. > > > > But again, let me reiterate that disk failures are far from the only > > reason that admins need capable filesystem repair tools, in general. > > > > We see users running fsck all the time, for various reasons. I can't > > back it up, but my hunch is that bugs and misconfigurations (i.e. write > > cache) are more often the root cause for filesystem inconsistencies. > > > > IMHO, focusing on physical disk failure rates is focusing too narrowly, > > but I suppose I'm just joining the chorus of hunches and anecdotes now. > > Actually there's quite a lot of evidence of this, even though there's > no precise estimate - not least of which these populations are > constantly dying and reemerging, and can be batch (firmware version) > specific. This is only the most recent such story on linux-btrfs@ (and > warning, this reads like an alien autopsy): > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20200708034407.ge10...@hungrycats.org/ > > fsck.btrfs is a no op, same as fsck.xfs. And recently the actual > repair utility dissuades users from running it casually. > > COW file systems are different. ZFS has no fsck to speak of, it can be > harrassed badly by hardware/firmware bugs too, and yet there aren't > many people who consider ZFS a problemed file system. How would the > story of Btrfs be different either without dm-log-writes to this day, > or had it already arrived in 2010? >
That is because anyone who questions the perfection of ZFS is quickly burned at a stake. I don't know what it is about filesystems turning into religions that do not brook questioning but what I am seeing in these emails is what turns me off of btrfs every time it is brought up in the same way I couldn't stand reiser, ZFS, or various other filesystems.. I realize filesystems take a lot of faith as people have to put something they value into a leap of faith it will be there the next day.. but it seems to morph quickly into some sort of fanatical evangelical movement. So a good reason why no one brings it up.. you learn quickly that questioning the perfection of any filesystem will fill your inbox with tirades from people. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ 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
