Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 16 May Default To Btrfs File-System

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

  • Fedora 16 May Default To Btrfs File-System

    Phoronix: Fedora 16 May Default To Btrfs File-System

    At long last, the Btrfs file-system is about to see some wide-scale deployments. While this next-generation Linux file-system has been an installation option in Fedora, Ubuntu, and others going back for several releases now, with Fedora 16 it may become the default file-system...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTU0Nw

  • #2
    This must be a joke, like btrfs's defragmentation

    See the upstream bug.

    If you really use btrfs as your main fs (as I did), it's really easy for files to be fragmented to hell, and reach unbelievable slow speeds (500kb/s).

    Plus there's no fsck (that can fix issues). It's experimental at best.

    Comment


    • #3
      That's funny, I'm going to switch to Btrfs today, but using the optional setting in OpenSUSE 11.4. I'm rather excited about this.

      Comment


      • #4
        Fedora is really a funny distro, most of the apps, drivers they use are really new, but as default bootloader they still use grub (1)! Every other distro ships grub 2. Maybe they could change that now as grub 2 has support for btrfs... When i saw the grub 1 syntax in the efi/boot dir then i thought first i did not dl the newest iso, but it was the latest one...

        Comment


        • #5
          There's nothing to be excited about, unless you use lzo compression or anything that btrfs provides while the others don't.

          I'm a bit disappointed because I installed Fedora on btrfs to use the snapshots feature, but it doesn't work so far. Fedora wiki says a new entry to create a snapshot should appear in the disk utility but I didn't found it. I will have the time to sort this out shortly but in the meantime I think the only thing btrfs does on my system is increasing the data loss probability.

          I also would like to test compression but I don't know if I can just modify mount options and reboot to enable it...

          Comment


          • #6
            btrfs still doesn't have any functioning file system cheker. How do they plan to ship it as default then?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by peapa View Post
              There's nothing to be excited about, unless you use lzo compression or anything that btrfs provides while the others don't.

              I'm a bit disappointed because I installed Fedora on btrfs to use the snapshots feature, but it doesn't work so far. Fedora wiki says a new entry to create a snapshot should appear in the disk utility but I didn't found it. I will have the time to sort this out shortly but in the meantime I think the only thing btrfs does on my system is increasing the data loss probability.

              I also would like to test compression but I don't know if I can just modify mount options and reboot to enable it...
              To take a snapshot of a subvolume

              btrfs subvolume snapshot /path/to/subvolume /path/to/snapshot/on/same/FS

              if my /home is a subvolume, then
              btrfs sub snap /home home-snapshot

              Also you can modify your mount option to include compress=lzo (depending on what kernel you have)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by stikonas View Post
                btrfs still doesn't have any functioning file system cheker. How do they plan to ship it as default then?
                We've been hearing for a while that it'll almost be ready. Maybe they're going to release in conjunction with the new btrfsck?

                There has been progress in btrfsck, but we see nothing in git because cmason doesn't want people to rush in and use new fsck code when it's not ready yet.

                Comment


                • #9
                  @stikonas
                  I also read a news on h-online.com about this and it is said that one of the criteria "is a proper program to check and repair Btrfs file systems".

                  It's not sure yet, if Butter FS will be the default in F16.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Not likely

                    Since I'm subscribed to the btrfs mailing list, let me just chime in and say there are far too many bugs reported daily for it to be in serious consideration as the default FS.

                    There is no fsck. Defragmentation doesn't always work. There are still lots of one-off cases that just fail because it hasn't been tested heavily yet.

                    I think it's a good idea Fedora starts the integration of btrfs, because maybe it'll be ready for F17. Right now I would only use it as a test playground. Even the btrfs dev say you should only use it for testing, and always keep a backup.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Wouldn't it be easier for Oracle to make ZFS available under the GPL rather than going through all this trouble with a new filesystem? Or do they have good reasons to maintain their current ZFS license?

                      I would feel a hell of a lot more comfortable with a mature filesystem like ZFS than dabbling with btrfs based on some of the postings in this thread. The benchmarks didn't seem too impressive either.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        BTRFS is a hack. And devs have no time to analyze existing issues while they go on a binge adding new features while trying to play catch up with ZFS features. Have a look at this one and see how many devs responded or analyzed the issue: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16508

                        BTRFS is years away from being usable. And my prediction for it is that it would be dead before it gets widely adopted anywhere! Oracle has no reason to continue with two filesystems.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by devsk View Post
                          BTRFS is years away from being usable. And my prediction for it is that it would be dead before it gets widely adopted anywhere! Oracle has no reason to continue with two filesystems.
                          In a previous thread you've mentioned that you have used zfs-fuse on linux and ZFS on Solaris... In terms of functionality and performance (which, admittedly can't be truly measured due to the different OSes), how similar would you say they are?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by johnc View Post
                            Wouldn't it be easier for Oracle to make ZFS available under the GPL rather than going through all this trouble with a new filesystem? Or do they have good reasons to maintain their current ZFS license?
                            They probably don't want to put ZFS under the GPLv3 (or compatible) license, if they're legally allowed to anyway. ZFS is Solaris' biggest selling point and since it's under Oracle's control, they want to make as much money off of it as possible.

                            My guess is if they can't make enough money off of Solaris, maybe they'll stop its development and concentrate on BTRFS, depending on how tightly integrated ZFS is with Solaris. If its easily portable, maybe they'll just axe BTRFS and put ZFS under the GPL.
                            Last edited by Vax456; 06-10-2011, 01:01 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by devsk View Post
                              BTRFS is years away from being usable. And my prediction for it is that it would be dead before it gets widely adopted anywhere! Oracle has no reason to continue with two filesystems.
                              Bullshit. It's being used in Meego and will be used in the Fedora 16. Are you Oracle's boss or something to say what reasons they have or not? It's more probable they care a lot more about btrfs, because when btrfs reaches stability they can simply forget about solaris and concentrate on Linux. ZFS is unlikely to be included into Linux kernel due to its design. So, if they really have no reason to continue with two filesystems btrfs is the winner. Btw. what features are missing in btrfs compared to ZFS at this point?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X