3 ms·

I dont use it, but in practical terms, I think btrfs is safe to use, from what I've been reading. There are some corner cases where something might bork, and yo

I dont use it, but in practical terms, I think btrfs is safe to use, from what I've been reading. There are some corner cases where something might bork, and you'll be staring at a recovery job, but hopefully no data will be lost. The main thing that I think is stopping widespread adoption is that none of the developers seems to want to come forth and say "Here's a stable, rock solid version. Go nuts.". There's always a caveat or a disclaimer. Use at your own risk and all that. When even the developers are kinda jittery about it, it isn't exactly reassuring.

dom0 9y ago
It still looks like the FS exhibits perf degradation (well, uh, worse than Linux already degrades under I/O load anyway) under not-that-untypical workloads. A few years ago it had the same problems with bog-standard workloads such as using it on / and installing or updating packages. Though, like I mentioned, Linux does generally not shine when it comes to I/O scheduling and system responsiveness. Just a couple days ago I made my whole workstation bog down by writing to the /home SSD with 400 MB/s avg (ext4). It's just not very good there, and it feels like the desktop software is getting worse at dealing with it (probably due to more I/O in more spots, like delayed loading of resources or history files that are read/written in the UI thread and stuff like that)...... especially considering that we all were on spinning rust a few years ago, and now everyone uses SSDs with orders of magnitude more IOPS and at least 2-4 times the read/write speed.