Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Error-Fixing Btrfs FSCK Tool Is Imminent

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

  • Error-Fixing Btrfs FSCK Tool Is Imminent

    Phoronix: Error-Fixing Btrfs FSCK Tool Is Imminent

    An fsck utility capable of fixing problems on the Btrfs file-system is imminent. Plus other features continue to be worked on for this next-generation, open-source Linux file-system...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA0Njk

  • #2
    He compared btrfs to btrfs?

    Comment


    • #3
      2012 is going to be an awesome year for free software

      Comment


      • #4
        I'll believe it when I see it. I've been hearing "fsck for btrfs is being worked on and should be here soon" for over a year now.

        Comment


        • #5
          What's the big deal about fsck? I've had a power loss corrupt ext4 beyond fsck repair, never had a problem with btrfs.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by chris200x9 View Post
            What's the big deal about fsck? I've had a power loss corrupt ext4 beyond fsck repair, never had a problem with btrfs.
            Perhaps it is more symbolic than anything. If the primary developer of the filesystem is unable to write a decent fsck utility, it may indicate that the filesystem is not yet stable enough or not well enough understood (or is too buggy) for serious use. On the other hand, if he CAN write a decent fsck utility...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by chris200x9 View Post
              What's the big deal about fsck? I've had a power loss corrupt ext4 beyond fsck repair, never had a problem with btrfs.
              Huge deal for me, I have had some very nasty corruptions that fsck has fixed up like a charm on ext4.

              Comment


              • #8
                openSUSE

                Article fails to mention openSUSE, which had btrfs in 11.4 for some time now (though experimental), and since november 2011 in openSUSE 12.1 it is possible to simply choose it during the install wizard. It even has snapshot capability built into YaST (snapper), so it can revert to the state of the filesystem before your last change for example. Phoronix is unfortunately, again, very Ubuntu biased.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by chris200x9 View Post
                  What's the big deal about fsck? I've had a power loss corrupt ext4 beyond fsck repair, never had a problem with btrfs.
                  How the heck do you know you don't have a problem since there's no fsck for it? Are you psychic?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by chris200x9 View Post
                    What's the big deal about fsck? I've had a power loss corrupt ext4 beyond fsck repair, never had a problem with btrfs.
                    I've had the exact opposite in my experience.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                      How the heck do you know you don't have a problem since there's no fsck for it? Are you psychic?
                      A fsck that is capable of reporting errors has existed for a long time already. So he doesn't have to be a psychic. Having said that. Fedora is unlikely to default to Btrfs for the next release until all the important issues besides fsck is resolved

                      https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689509

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Likewise, Ubuntu can not use it be default until either dpkg doesn't fsync (danger!), or btrfs fsync doesn't completely suck (and it still really sucks). This poor fsync performance also makes it unsuitable for a whole lot of workloads.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by chris200x9 View Post
                          What's the big deal about fsck? I've had a power loss corrupt ext4 beyond fsck repair, never had a problem with btrfs.
                          The big deal is that fsck is a contingency plan. With a fsck tool (capable of repairing issues not just reporting them) you at least have a chance of fixing things if something gets corrupted. Not having a fsck tool is like driving around in your car without a spare tire, a jack, or a cell phone. Everything is fine as long as you don't get a flat.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Error in btrfs

                            I have errors in my btrfs home partition. And some times the when some application is trying to read big files from my home directory, it took much much more time then from even ntfs/fat drives. Don't know if that for the errors. Anyway a fsck with error correcting capabilities is required.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              ZFS already does not need offline fsck for many years...

                              ZFS has all that Btrfs yet needs to be developed and it is in use for years.

                              Since recently, you can also run Linux on ZFS using ZFSOnLinux implementation, besides Zfs-Fuse , Solaris, Openindiana (Illumos) , SmartOS , Nexenta and FreeBSD.

                              Why would I wait for fsck?
                              ZFS has disk scrub and it can do disk check while server is in production.

                              I think that even on desktop I am angry to fsck stopping me to log into my machine every once in a while, when Ubuntu wants do to pre-boot fsck of my ext4 system disk... While I am waiting and asking myself, when I will install my Ubuntu on ZFS and avoid this..

                              I suppose since Btrfs is still in heavy development, fsck is needed for some serious crashes during development but
                              I was thinking Btfrs would be more like ZFS in a manner of robustness.

                              Oracle also has ZFS in it's portfolio, all it needs it to dual-license ZFS to GPL, besides CDDL and implement it isn Linux kernel.
                              Oh, sorry, ZFS is already done ported to Linux, with ZfsOnLinux via Solaris porting layer and ZFS tend to control "everything", so you do not need Linux facilities to manage your disks with all Raid Levels, actuallly..
                              Last edited by Markore; 01-25-2012, 01:54 PM. Reason: typo

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X