Posted Oct 11, 2011 20:02 UTC (Tue) by drdabbles (subscriber, #48755)
Parent article: Whither btrfsck?
While BTRFS is in the kernel, it isn't considered "stable" by any sane system admin. team. The only people putting it on their systems are individual users with individual machines that could potentially lose all data without harm. Anybody else should expect nothing less than having a baby eaten.
Having said that, I've run BTRFS in several different scenarios with varying levels of success. In the early days, it was easy to run a balance that would never end. Those situations would lead to data being lost, and that was to be expected. Most recently, I run it on my personal laptop with a slow HDD in it- I find the compression option to be a welcome speedup for the sub-par performing media.
So, who's at fault for this out-cry for a fsck tool? Did the distros include BTRFS too soon? Did the BTRFS guys market their filesystem too well? Or are we all just a group of tinkerers that would have found BTRFS anyway and ran it on everything we could..and damn the consequences? Personally, I think it's mostly the latter. This exact pattern has happened several times before with non-ext* filesystems. As mentioned already, reiser was the most obvious example.