On Jan 16, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought one of the biggest blockers was the lack of a complete and > stable fsck implementation for it. I think this is a poor metric for outsiders to require. ZFS has been stable for some time and does not have an fsck. A more important question from those not directly involved in Btrfs development, is when is it stable enough that developers will be willing to back port significant fixes to older kernels. Currently the #1 suggestion on linux-btrfs@ when users have problems is to try the latest kernel, i.e. a week ago the suggestion to a user was to try it on 3.8.0.-rc3, which currently only appeared about 5 days ago for rawhide. Not F18. So if regular Fedora users having Btrfs problems are going to be told to use kernels that might not even available in koji, let alone not in updates-testing for the actual current released version? I think that's disqualifying. Not the lack of a stable or complete fsck. On Jan 16, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:13:07 +1030 > William Brown <will...@firstyear.id.au> wrote: > >> I take it then that subvolid 258 is marked as "/" in your fstab? > > yes, via a subvol=root fstab entry. Has anyone tested subvolid=xxx works for rootfs yet? I know GRUB 2 will not resolve subvolid, it essentially treats subvols as folders, but does it only with pathnames, not ID number. If fstab uses subvolid for boot, then boot fails. I'm not sure if systemd and dracut will handle rootfs defined by subvolid. This is more stable, as the subvolume can be renamed or moved, and things still work. Whereas with subvol (name) things can break. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
