Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's Talk Again About Btrfs For Fedora

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Some people might care about defaults and others will care about whether or not it is supported or not and ZFS has roughly about zero chance of becoming a default filesystem for any major distro before Btrfs does.
    I had edited that from my post because it was not relevant. Anyway, ZFS has a chance of becoming the default filesystem for a major Linux distribution before btrfs does. I will refrain from naming the distribution that I have in mind, but I will say that two things are required for that distribution to switch, in the following sequence:
    1. ZFS rootfs support in the installer
    2. A decision by that distribution's developers to switch

    The first was supposed to happen last year, but it was delayed.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ryao View Post
      What do you mean when you talk about commercial support? Microsoft commercially supports Windows, but I am fairly certain that neither of us would want to use it. If you mean that they are taking bug reports for issues, then that would put btrfs in the same category as everything else that has developer(s) handling bug reports. For instance, I am non-commercially supporting ZFS as the root filesystem for Gentoo Linux (and its variants). I suspect that I do as good a job of supporting ZFS in Gentoo as my counterparts at Oracle and SUSE support btrfs in their distributions.
      Enterprise distros have full time developers, quality assurance staff, support engineers etc and the nature of the support is very different from what you do. Are you serious saying you have no idea of the dfiference between commercial and community support? Taking bug reports, writing documentation and helping users would be community support. Commercial support involves a legal contract between two entities and the nature of the support can involve answering questions within a particular time frame, developing new features to meet customer demands and more depending on the nature of the contract.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ryao View Post
        I had edited that from my post because it was not relevant. Anyway, ZFS has a chance of becoming the default filesystem for a major Linux distribution before btrfs does. I will refrain from naming the distribution that I have in mind, but I will say that two things are required for that distribution to switch, in the following sequence:
        1. ZFS rootfs support in the installer
        2. A decision by that distribution's developers to switch

        The first was supposed to happen last year, but it was delayed.
        Sorry. I am not buying it unless you name the distro in question.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
          No btrfsck, no vote for btrfs as a default. Isn't that simple?
          There is a btrfsck program available it just doesn't follow the fsck API hence why there's no fsck.btrfs and when you make an initramfs it will usually complain that no fsck could be found. But thats not actually true, the fsck is available from btrfs-progs under the name btrfsck

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
            Enterprise distros have full time developers, quality assurance staff, support engineers etc and the nature of the support is very different from what you do. Are you serious saying you have no idea of the dfiference between commercial and community support? Taking bug reports, writing documentation and helping users would be community support. Commercial support involves a legal contract between two entities and the nature of the support can involve answering questions within a particular time frame, developing new features to meet customer demands and more depending on the nature of the contract.
            ZFS already handles much of what people want and there are improvements in development by both the community and various commercial companies. In specific, Delphix, Joyent and Nexenta are doing commercial development. LLNL has paid developers working on it. I tend to collaborate with them and get improvements into ZFSOnLInux. Some of the things that have resulted from that collaboration were popular requests in the community, such as support for swap on ZFS and support for newer kernels. I am currently using ZFS with Linux 3.8-rc3. There are other improvements that I am working on as well.

            As far as results go, ZFS outperforms btrfs. It has better performance, better scaling, better stability and a better track record for data integrity. I cannot claim responsibility for much of that, but I can say that when someone tells me that they have a problem, I work on a fix. People might not have a commercial support contract with ZFS, but it delivers results, which is more than what btrfs has done so far.

            Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
            Sorry. I am not buying it unless you name the distro in question.
            It really has no place here. If it happens, you will find out when everyone else does.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
              I never said anything about SUSE using Btrfs as default.
              What is wrong with you? You responded to my comment about btrfs being the default filesystem in a conservative linux distro by saying that SUSE supports btrfs, and then when I point out that it is not the default filesystem, you claim not to know what I am talking about.

              Are you just trolling for fun? Or are you really having that much trouble following the thread of conversation?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ryao View Post
                It really has no place here. If it happens, you will find out when everyone else does.
                This is very amusing. You want to assert something without providing any evidence of it. If it has no place here, you shouldn't have bought it up at all in the first place. As far as Btrfs vs ZFS arguments, I have no interest in them. There are customers who need one or the other and are willing to invest in them heavily and there are non-paying but important community players who are participating and as long as there is interest and/or money, these technologies will be developed in parallel and flourish just fine. No amount of snipping in forums is going to change that.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
                  You responded to my comment about btrfs being the default filesystem in a conservative linux distro by saying that SUSE supports btrfs, and then when I point out that it is not the default filesystem, you claim not to know what I am talking about.
                  I am snipping out the personal insults. You were comparing Btrfs and ZFS. I am pointing that Btrfs is already commercially supported and has production level deployments by several vendors as a data point. Take it for what its worth.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                    I am pointing that Btrfs is already commercially supported and has production level deployments by several vendors as a data point. Take it for what its worth.
                    Which is irrelevant to my comment that btrfs still does not have a conservative distro that uses btrfs as the default filesystem.

                    It took 4 or 5 years for ZFS to become the default filesystem in Solaris.

                    btrfs development is going on 6 years now, and no conservative linux distro trusts btrfs enough to make it the default filesystem.
                    That makes btrfs slower in development than ZFS. And I see no sign that things are speeding up for btrfs. I wonder if btrfs will ever be good enough to use as the default filesystem for a conservative linux distro.
                    Last edited by jwilliams; 01-17-2013, 07:11 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                      This is very amusing. You want to assert something without providing any evidence of it. If it has no place here, you shouldn't have bought it up at all in the first place. As far as Btrfs vs ZFS arguments, I have no interest in them. There are customers who need one or the other and are willing to invest in them heavily and there are non-paying but important community players who are participating and as long as there is interest and/or money, these technologies will be developed in parallel and flourish just fine. No amount of snipping in forums is going to change that.
                      I withdrew that comment by editing my post because I did not want to speak for other people. Excuse me for making an obscure comment that was not my place to make. If that distribution that I have in mind switches, they will be the ones to announce it, not me.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                        Sorry. I am not buying it unless you name the distro in question.
                        I assume he must be referring to one of Oracle's distros (probably OL since they've already brought over DTrace as a module,though I'll be curious how they'll manage to integrate zfs).
                        However, he may also be mistaken.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by liam View Post
                          I assume he must be referring to one of Oracle's distros (probably OL since they've already brought over DTrace as a module,though I'll be curious how they'll manage to integrate zfs).
                          However, he may also be mistaken.
                          Oracle's Linux developers and I have no contact with each other. I have no idea what they are doing aside from what I hear from people who talked to Oracle. As far as I have heard, Oracle regards Linux as being a lower-end offering. They seem to have no plans to port ZFS from Solaris because that would affect product differentiation.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ryao View Post
                            Oracle's Linux developers and I have no contact with each other. I have no idea what they are doing aside from what I hear from people who talked to Oracle. As far as I have heard, Oracle regards Linux as being a lower-end offering. They seem to have no plans to port ZFS from Solaris because that would affect product differentiation.
                            Well, one would think porting DTrace would lessen the differentiation but they did that.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
                              Which is irrelevant to my comment that btrfs still does not have a conservative distro that uses btrfs as the default filesystem. .
                              That's where we disagree. Production level deployments and commercial support from multiple vendors are strong indicators of the maturity level of the filesystem.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by liam View Post
                                Well, one would think porting DTrace would lessen the differentiation but they did that.
                                DTrace is a debugging feature. It does not affect production use outside of possible performance tuning.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X