Has the btrfs vs the installer problem been fixed in LMDE?

[cdysthe]

Hi,

I had to go through a lot of trouble to install LMDE with the following partitioning: ext2 /boot, btrfs / and btrfs /home. This was the same partitioning I used for Mint 10 on the same machine. It was pretty complicated to get it to work on LMDE and I would not like to have to repeat the process (included having to chroot in after install). It's been running without any problems after that though. This machine is used for a lot of large file transfers and btrfs is quite a bit faster than ext4 (twice as fast for rsync jobs to external drives!). I was wondering if the installer has been fixed. and if not when it is likely to happen?

[pmd]

I've done LMDE installation on partitioning similiar to yours and it runs without problems (64 bit version). It was about one month ago.

[m.keane]

1) BTRFS is known to be slower than ext4. It is not a miracle filesystem.
2) LMDE was never advertised as a distribution fully supporting btrfs. Consider the fact its experimental?

[cdysthe]

1) BTRFS is known to be slower than ext4. It is not a miracle filesystem.

Not on my rig. Large rsync file copy operations between drives which I've done a lot and know exactly how long took on ext4 took far less with btrfs. Could just be my setup working well with btrfs I guess

2) LMDE was never advertised as a distribution fully supporting btrfs. Consider the fact its experimental?

I know it's experimental, but it's been quite stable for me, and it's used on quite well backed up systems.