Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th May 2010 22:23 UTC
Permalink for comment 424650
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-26
we've been using BTRFS in all builds for a long time now, and frankly we have had more
issues with the ext3 side of the world than with btrfs
But that comment is no more helpful either as it doesn't discuss what the issues with ext3 were let the fact that ext3 has been superseded by ext4.
I want to know:
* Why was BtrFS less of an issue? (and what the issues were)
* What were the issues with ext3?
* Would those issues still have existed if they'd used ext4?
* and were the BtrFS issues more technical than the ext3 issues (it's all very good and well saying there were more issues with ext3, but if those issues were easy to fix and BtrFS's weren't, then ext3 will still make a better consumer fs for the moment).