Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's Talk Again About Btrfs For Fedora

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Production level deployments and commercial support from multiple vendors are strong indicators of the maturity level of the filesystem.
    An even better indicator is that none of those vendors trust btrfs enough to make it the default filesystem.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
      That's where we disagree. Production level deployments and commercial support from multiple vendors are strong indicators of the maturity level of the filesystem.
      Is there is good way to measure production deployments?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
        An even better indicator is that none of those vendors trust btrfs enough to make it the default filesystem.
        This isn't true. There are appliances that are in the market with Btrfs as default and SUSE recommends Btrfs as root filesystem as well. I don't think you can ignore all these indicators.

        https://www.linux.com/news/enterpris...-ready-to-rock

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
          There are appliances that are in the market with Btrfs as default and SUSE recommends Btrfs as root filesystem as well. I don't think you can ignore all these indicators.
          Those are not indicators. Those "appliances" are small-time, niche products. If SUSE actually trusted btrfs, they would have it as the default filesystem.

          What no rational person can ignore is that no major linux distro trusts btrfs enough to have it be the default filesystem. That shows that btrfs cannot be trusted for widespread, serious usage. btrfs is simply not ready for prime-time, despite nearly 6 years of development. It is hard not to wonder if btrfs will ever be trustworthy.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
            Those are not indicators. Those "appliances" are small-time, niche products. If SUSE actually trusted btrfs, they would have it as the default filesystem.
            SUSE recommends ROOT filesystem be Btrfs and you are still claiming they don't trust it? I cannot take you seriously anymore.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
              SUSE recommends ROOT filesystem be Btrfs and you are still claiming they don't trust it? I cannot take you seriously anymore.
              Oh, that hurts! I am not being taken seriously by someone who cannot even follow the thread of a simple conversation.

              You are grasping at straws. Let me try to make it simple for you. If the SUSE developers trusted btrfs, it would be the default filesystem without the user needing to select it. What one person writes in the documentation means little. What the distro actually does, and whether it defaults to btrfs filesystem automatically, is the real indicator.

              btrfs is not the default filesystem for SUSE, or any other major distro. Clearly SUSE, as well as all the other major linux distros, think btrfs is not ready to be trusted as the default filesystem.
              Last edited by jwilliams; 01-17-2013, 10:52 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                ZFS was developed for Solaris, by Sun. How can you know that if Chris Mason had his own distro that he wouldn't have used Btrfs already?
                Going by when Sun started to trust ZFS enough for default doesn't count in my eyes. they didn't need to convince other distros.

                Besides, defaults are just the safe settings for people who don't know what they're doing. Enterprise people do.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Chris Mason is no Jeff Bonwick. I doubt many people would want to use a Mason distro. Sun, on the other hand, was trusted by a lot of people for putting out a dependable OS.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by jwilliams View Post

                    Let me try to make it simple for you. If the SUSE developers trusted btrfs, it would be the default filesystem without the user needing to select it.

                    But it is not. Clearly SUSE thinks btrfs is not ready to be trusted as the default filesystem.
                    So, you are claiming they support something commercially and they recommend it as root filesystem without trusting it? SUSE doesn't have defaults without users selecting it in core components like these. If you understand how the installer works, you will know what they recommend is effectively considered the default

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                      If you understand how the installer works, you will know what they recommend is effectively considered the default
                      You really need to stop grasping at straws. The default filesystem for SUSE is ext3.

                      RHEL, CentOS, Fedora, SUSE, Ubuntu and Debian. None of the major linux distros trust btrfs enough to use it as the default filesystem. There is a reason -- because btrfs is not trustworthy. It is not ready for widespread, serious usage.

                      https://www.suse.com/products/server...l-information/
                      The current default file system for new SUSE Linux Enterprise 11 installations is ext3.
                      Last edited by jwilliams; 01-17-2013, 11:07 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by jwilliams;307013

                        [URL
                        https://www.suse.com/products/server/technical-information/[/URL]
                        Hint: Look at the SP2 press release and what they commericlally support and recommend. If they dont consider it trustworthy, do you think Oracle and SUSE would support it? Your refusal to answer that basic question tells a lot.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
                          Chris Mason is no Jeff Bonwick. I doubt many people would want to use a Mason distro. Sun, on the other hand, was trusted by a lot of people for putting out a dependable OS.
                          That wasn't my point...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                            Hint: Look at the SP2 press release and what they commericlally support and recommend. If they dont consider it trustworthy, do you think Oracle and SUSE would support it? Your refusal to answer that basic question tells a lot.
                            And you continue to grasp at straws. In fact, they do not consider btrfs trustworthy for widespread usage, which is why it is not the default filesystem. Your inability to grasp this simple concept tells a lot.

                            The fact is that no major linux distro trusts btrfs enough to make it the default filesystem.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                              That wasn't my point...
                              Right, because what I wrote actually made sense, so it couldn't be your point.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
                                You really need to stop grasping at straws. The default filesystem for SUSE is ext3.

                                RHEL, CentOS, Fedora, SUSE, Ubuntu and Debian. None of the major linux distros trust btrfs enough to use it as the default filesystem. There is a reason -- because btrfs is not trustworthy. It is not ready for widespread, serious usage.

                                https://www.suse.com/products/server...l-information/
                                I really wouldnt be trusting SUSE's choice of recommendation purely based off of the "Default" choice...the default is still ext3, not even ext4. By your logic, ext4 is therefore not ready for widespread serious use just because SUSE says "No" to it being the default.

                                btrfs has 3 major blockers right now for "mainstream" use.

                                1) mkfs.btrfs doesn't always work (correctly) and I know that from personal experience-- I installed Arch Linux on THIS laptop about a month ago and mkfs.btrfs would run correctly but mount would refuse to mount it, saying the system had a bad superblock along with a few other errors. At first I thought it was the drive, but mkfs.ext4 worked just fine. (Not just one attempt, multiple attempts always the same thing: ext4 is created and mounted successfully, btrfs is created successfully (no errors) but refuses to mount)

                                2) btrfsck needs to be written around the fsck API's so that a proper fsck.btrfs can be available, this is mainly an issue for initramfs creation (atleast mkinitcpio looks for fsck.$filesystem directly) and scripts that merely call "fsck"

                                3) the VM issue needs to be sorted out. For those that don't know, btrfs suuuuuuuucks at small random writes, which is exactly what databases and VM images handle and those need to be properly sorted out otherwise you have crap performance from day 1 that gradually gets worse and worse ....fun

                                --Eric--


                                EDIT: "btrfs scrub" is only an "fsck" utility if there are copies available to be used. As far as I can find online all "btrfs scrub" does is go through the file system and checks the checksum of every file, if one is damaged it deletes the file and does in-place replace of a saved backup of that file...if theres no backup available, then you just have a corrupted file.

                                ^If im wrong on that, please include a link to the source because thats all my own research turned up.
                                Last edited by Ericg; 01-17-2013, 11:19 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X