User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Whither btrfsck?

Whither btrfsck?

Posted Oct 12, 2011 0:52 UTC (Wed) by jcm (subscriber, #18262)
In reply to: Whither btrfsck? by fuhchee
Parent article: Whither btrfsck?

As Paul points out, people have this attitude (and I'm one of them sometimes). I'm a scientist and I'm all for zapping myself with magic lightening machines (see xkcd reference cited below) on my own dime and at home, but if I were a sysadmin again I wouldn't be doing that with other people's valuable data. I'd be saying "gee, reiserfs bit me once so now it has to go out of its way to prove that I should use it over something I know is just going to work". This is also why in the real world people are still running OS releases from several years ago, and why they want them supported for the next million years. Because it works and that's all they want.


(Log in to post comments)

Whither btrfsck?

Posted Oct 12, 2011 8:23 UTC (Wed) by arnd (subscriber, #8866) [Link]

I think that's all fine, as long as we have enough people zapping themselves with btrfs in their homes[1]. A problem that I frequently heard cited with mainframe OSs is that every customer buys the latest release the moment it comes out and then waits for six to twelve months before installing it since they know it is less stable than what they want.
This makes absolute sense from an individual customer's point of view, but is extremely counterproductive on a global scale since many bugs that matter in real life only get found in real-life conditions.
At this point I would like to thank everybody who is running the latest kernel or distro snapshots and writes bug reports about them.

[1] Me included, will gladly donate broken root fs image to btrfsck testing now that I copied all the readable data to a new partition.

Whither btrfsck?

Posted Oct 12, 2011 19:47 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

I Am Not A VM Guy... but what I know of them suggests that

> A problem that I frequently heard cited with mainframe OSs is that every customer buys the latest release the moment it comes out and then waits for six to twelve months before installing it since they know it is less stable than what they want.

isn't actually true: I would assume the load the new OS in a VM or LPAR, and dump test loads on it to see if it works, before promoting it to production.

Hardware-level virtualization makes that stuff easy...

Whither btrfsck?

Posted Oct 12, 2011 20:19 UTC (Wed) by arnd (subscriber, #8866) [Link]

You're right, I oversimplified. What tends to happen is that people wait half a year after the release, then install the new OS into a test partition and test for another six months before putting the system into production.
The times are obviously different depending on how paranoid the admin is and on the type of workload.

However, there are still good reasons for waiting: The bugs you encounter while running the new software on your test partition are often different from the bugs that other people encounter while running the same software in production. If you care a lot about stability, you probably want to have both kinds of problems solved before you get to the point of no return.

Whither btrfsck?

Posted Oct 13, 2011 13:35 UTC (Thu) by pspinler (subscriber, #2922) [Link]

Speaking as a VM guy, you're mostly right, except that we do our new releases in a 2nd level virtual.

VM is pretty cool, and it makes a neat platform to run linux on. :-)

-- Pat

Whither btrfsck?

Posted Oct 13, 2011 15:06 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

And that's a conversation I'd like to have with Someone Who Knows, off line, in much greater detail, Pat... :-)


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds