Hacker News Reader

It's always been. I used it on my servers in "Raid 10" mode and on my daily driver for 3 years now.

As long as you don't do BTRFS-level raid 5/6. (Just do lvm-level or md-raid-level raid 5/6) don't do many subvolume with quota. (many subvolumes is fine) It's production ready.

I don't know where this "btrfs is not stable" coming from. According to HackerNews, I should have lost my data due to BTRFS 10 times already.

View on HN

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people only consider their own experiences as relevant

"btrfs is not stable" is coming from people for whom btrfs has not been stable. Why is that so hard to understand?

Okay, was it "not stable" because they expected it to be ext3-like and when btrfs discovered that their system eats bytes and refuses to mount (and they would need to use the recovery mode, get a second disk and do a copy and then a proper restore) or it was not stable because they ran into a kernel oops/bug/deadlock/etc?

From https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page

"The Btrfs code base is stable"

And https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status is exactly what I said in the GP. Besides quotas and RAID56, everything is stable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com