remove recommending btrfs
Upstream doesn't recommend it for production use. Btrfs is unstable and does result in many warnings displayed specifically with CEPH's workload. Performance degrades over time, under ceph's workload. (see mailing list & cross posts from ceps to btrfs).
14:32 <xnox> On top of which filesystem is it currently recommended to run CEPH? btrfs?!
14:32 <pmjdebruijn> last time we tried btrfs still had issue
14:33 <pmjdebruijn> we are running it on ext4
14:33 <pmjdebruijn> already we have a limited usecase
14:33 <pmjdebruijn> although* (not already)
14:33 <pmjdebruijn> xnox: stick around and see what others have to say
14:33 <filoo_absynth> /sign
14:33 * xnox will be idle here for a bit ;-)
14:34 <filoo_absynth> tried btrfs, crashed badly. used ext4, crashed badly too, but it wasn't the FS's fault
14:45 <ao> ext4 without journal just got a bug fixed in 3.2.18 that can hang osd. We are just now retrying with 3.2.18.
14:48 <ao> btrfs also crashed here in all our tests.
15:26 <oliver> Hi... I will hope that there is no "mission-critical" reason, that 0.47 tarballs are not there yet ;) ?
15:29 <filoo_absynth> just out of curiosity: who here is from germany, the netherlands, belgium or eastern france?
15:30 * ao is from Germany.
15:31 <pmjdebruijn> netherlands here
15:34 <pmjdebruijn> filoo_absynth: why btw?
15:41 <nhm> good morning #ceph
15:42 <oliver> nhm: I have a wget-loop running for 0.47*.... Do you know, when it will be terminated?
15:42 <oliver> nhm: good afternoon ;)=
15:43 <nhm> oliver: when you stop it? ;)
15:43 <oliver> Hehe
15:44 <nhm> oliver: honestly no idea. I haven't been focusing on the releases much.
15:44 <nhm> oliver: oh, supposedly it was released 8 hours ago!
15:44 <nhm> http://ceph.com/releases/v0-47-released/
15:45 <nhm> xnox: I'd give xfs a try.
IMHO recommending btrfs for something productional, isn't healthy