On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Duncan [off-list ref] wrote:

Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:44:20 -0700 as excerpted:

quoted

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:42 AM, Marc Haber [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

And this is really something to be proud of? I mean, this is a file
system that is part of the vanilla linux kernel, not marked as
experimental or something, and you're still concerned about file
systems that were made a year ago? This is a new experience for me.

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/

tree/Documentation/filesystems/btrfs.txt?id=refs/tags/v4.4.4

quoted

"Btrfs is under heavy development, and is not suitable for any uses
other than benchmarking and review. The Btrfs disk format is not yet
finalized."

I thought the 2nd sentence was removed a long time ago but I'm seeing it
in the current branch and 4.1.y. Is this a bug?

AFAIK, this is the still "semi-scary" wording that was left after the
_really_ scary "eat your babies" level experimental warning was stripped,
and it remains more or less literally the case, certainly the last
sentence,

The Btrfs wiki main page says the format is no longer unstable. So OK,
I guess those are compatible. Not yet finalized does not mean unstable
I guess?

And that was when btrfs still had the much more severe experimental label
applied, so particularly now that it's gone,

Right the experimental label is probably what I'm thinking of.
Nevertheless the above does sound a bit dire. I mean, for raid56 it's
totally reasonable, and maybe even any multiple device stuff just
because of the lack of faulty device handling, in particular
notification. But I'm not sure ZFS on Linux (or even FreeBSD) have any
of that either.


-- 
Chris Murphy