On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Richard Yao <r...@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote: >> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking >> them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable... > > Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The > kernel modules are only available in the form of 9999 ebuilds right > now, but they your data should be safe unless you go out of your way > to break things (e.g. putting the ZIL/SLOG on a tmpfs). Alternatively, > there is XFS, which I believe also supports snapshots. >
FWIW, I'll second the ZFS > btrfs suggestion. I understand people want to go btrfs cause its the Linux way but in real world usage, its performance is abysmal We've had over a dozen developers switch to btrfs in my group on their various environments (OpenSUSE, Fedora, own rolled distros) and they've all gone back to their previous filesystem of choice. Simplest test I can suggest to btrfs users to attempt is the following: dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/btrfs/file bs=4k count=100 oflag=direct dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/ext4/file bs=4k count=100 oflag=direct It will emulate the similar operation to an fdatasync(). -- Doug Goldstein
