On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 08:56:45 AM Jason White wrote:
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au> wrote:
From slide: "... use recent kernels if you can, but consider staying a kernel or two behind for stability."
I hope BTRFS is starting to get the kind of deployment that will enable reliability bugs to be found and fixed. XFS developers have always been very good at running regression tests. If I remember rightly, parts of their test suite were generic and there were plans to apply it to other file systems - exactly what is needed.
The XFS test suite is being extended to cover bugs in BTRFS too. I think it's more of a generic filesystem test suite than an XFS specific thing nowadays, there was even talk of renaming it. This idea that BTRFS users should upgrade to the latest kernels is a bit silly. If you have a specific bug that is known to be fixed then upgrading it is the right thing to do. But don't expect that newer kernels will always be better. New kernels have new bugs and also expose new bugs by fixing old bugs, in particular performance improvements often expose bugs in older code. I have Debian/Wheezy systems that are running BTRFS without problems and I don't think there's any need for an upgrade. While Debian/Jessie is running a kernel that isn't going to have upstream support for backporting fixes to BTRFS it's also running quite well (surprisingly well really) and again I don't feel a great need to upgrade. My laptop will get kernel 4.0.0 next time I reboot it. This isn't because I expect an benefit from a new kernel (I don't) but because as a DD it's part of my job to try the new versions. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/