From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-164276-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C512138CD1
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 01:08:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 17B8CE0954;
Mon, 18 May 2015 01:08:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com (mail-ig0-f182.google.com [209.85.213.182])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D61FFE08E9
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 01:08:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igcau1 with SMTP id au1so35701848igc.1
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 17 May 2015 18:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=jXBNb3Sv7fqNDj1QsaElM2bKxCn0qfPDII4rEtxGKA4=;
b=K7R8h2WhwHy2tZXWr9/pWm5/UANJ8+3zEFWvEUf3ukfLrQRUKsJ5m0okuGkYzmLms7
7xKFyM/sQdZ0eF0fSi4JpQcx9JWEGkdTFBktgXZ8FnUY/+sbGZZsxlMyvejw0M8QSkn6
zMFd8hqUd5hAPW6yqvwleVa53om9dux5jloj/KbfmFiayYDy2qHyvUvJP2Xd27vQCd1A
iWAsyvNA2moSX7E9YIOJwLDoHo2Y5ESr3/0tLPKhyL0YRKwg+gqTVcgm954NSSrdPMXt
d6vRXricMcxv7NF/TNewPSyF20tUPD/u1NpBPZ7uq9fwGj9MPyooeLlrf85tbFx4PlHf
J2BA==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.29.40 with SMTP id g8mr11160004igh.41.1431911285139; Sun,
17 May 2015 18:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.48.66 with HTTP; Sun, 17 May 2015 18:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5559115A.9010303@xunil.at>
References: <CADqA9uYkvDWYGfrHtBmR+wQuCx5-ffHO+tw0jtiMSnwdKmv7DQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1512794.C4Cbul46Ps@wstn>
<CAGfcS_m_7dL=ai-qLegZhWrVNQm6S54oCFvCRpMt9cy3R6Ja_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<29229163.gfWtQPVkRf@wstn>
<5558EDD9.6070405@xunil.at>
<CADqA9uay_iwK1kmw-K2o5+xS+q85okgQBE9kh+sTv6ON_8xApw@mail.gmail.com>
<5559115A.9010303@xunil.at>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 21:08:05 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: PXREhNOoTdKAs91dG9LYydK1wxo
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_=KjNsZZm4Vecm4TQ76ecdpZrqASekP4cgvypZ8nq_VtA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Tips for fresh install with GRUB2+RAID1+LVM2
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: db1fdd2f-c580-4a21-b461-b6235631aab9
X-Archives-Hash: 8973d6a27475044bde30d0bf1e71d338
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger <lists@xunil.at> wrote:
>
> There were problems with btrfs and the kernel a few months ago (Rich
> Freeman was hit by that, maybe he chimes in here), but in general for me
> it is still a very positive experience.
>
It is nowhere near the stability of ext4. In the last year I've
probably had 2-3 periods of time where I was getting frequent panics,
or panics anytime I'd mount my filesystems rw. That said, I've never
had an occasion where I couldn't mount the filesystem ro, and I've
never had an actual loss of committed data. Just downtime while I
sorted things out. I do keep a full daily rsnapshot backup on ext4
right now since I consider btrfs experimental. However, if I were too
cheap to do that I wouldn't have actually lost anything yet.
On the other hand, both btrfs and zfs will get you a level of data
security that you simply won't get from ext4+lvm+mdadm - protection
from silent corruption. The only time I've ever had a filesystem eat
my data on linux was on ext4+lvm+mdadm actually - when I googled for
the specific circumstances I think I ran into one guy on a list
somewhere who had the same problem, but it is pretty rare (and one
piece of advice I would give to anybody using lvm is to backup your
metadata - if I had done that and was more careful about running fsck
in repair mode I probably could have restored everything without
issue). (For the curious, the issue was that I repaired a bunch of
fsck-detected problems in one filesystem and lost a lot of data in
another one. I suspect that LVM got its mapping messed up somehow,
and it might have had to do with operating in degraded mode (perhaps
due to a crash and need for rebuild).)
A big advantage of btrfs/zfs is that everything is checksummed on
disk, and the filesystem is not going to rely on anything that isn't
internally consistent. In the event of a rebuild/etc it can always
tell which copies are good/bad, unless you do something really crazy
like split an array onto two PCs, then rebuild both, and then try to
start mix the disks back together - from what I've heard btrfs lacks
generation numbers/etc needed to detect this kind of problem.
For personal use btrfs is great for playing around with the likely
future default linux filesystem. I wouldn't go installing it on
production servers in a workplace unless it was a really niche
situation, and then only with appropriate steps to mitigate the risks
(lots of testing of new kernel releases, backups or an ability to
regenerate the system, etc). I wouldn't go so far as to say that
there are no circumstances where it is the right tool for the job.
You should understand the pros/cons before using it, as with any tool.
--
Rich