Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs File-System Changes Published For Linux 3.13

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

  • Btrfs File-System Changes Published For Linux 3.13

    Phoronix: Btrfs File-System Changes Published For Linux 3.13

    The Linux 3.13 kernel brings major enhancements to Samsung's F2FS file-system but the EXT4 and XFS changes aren't too exciting. How are the Btrfs changes for this next kernel? We now know thanks to a new pull request from Chris Mason...

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

  • #2
    I want btrfs to be finalized. I want to use Wayland with KDE 5. I want Lightworks to be released. I want CS:GO.

    I want these things, stop making me wait!

    Also, HL3 Linux Exclusive.

    Comment


    • #3
      I would not count on btrfs being "finalized" any time soon.

      The btrfs project was never very focused and directed. Now that Mason no longer works for Oracle, the project seems even more directionless than before. There are a number of people fixing bugs, but there always seem to be more bugs being discovered, and the important issues do not seem to get fixed or completed (qgroups, free space, parity RAID, snapshots, etc.)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by monraaf View Post
        Also, HL3 Linux Exclusive.
        You forgot to mention Portal 2.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
          ...There are a number of people fixing bugs, but there always seem to be more bugs being discovered, and the important issues do not seem to get fixed or completed (qgroups, free space, parity RAID, snapshots, etc.)
          Care to elaborate? What's the issue with snapshotting and parity RAID (besides not being fully implemented)?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by benmoran View Post
            Care to elaborate? What's the issue with snapshotting and parity RAID (besides not being fully implemented)?
            You do not consider not "being fully implemented" an issue? And no 3-parity RAID like ZFS RAIDZ3.

            snapshots are not as flexible as on ZFS, there still seem to be various bugs reported for people making many snapshots, and it seems that most distro developers think that the btrfs snapshot capability is insufficient to implement a convenient system rollback feature at the bootloader stage

            But the biggest issue by far is the free space issue. Finding the free space is complicated, managing it is difficult even with the buggy quota functionality, and it is a major hassle to deal with a full btrfs filesystem.

            btrfs cannot equal the functionality of ZFS, nor the stability of ZFS, despite having been in development for 6 years now. (yes, I know ZFS has been in development since 2001, but ZFS had a stable release in 2005, and since most of the functionality in btrfs was already known and understood when btrfs development started since ZFS already pioneered it, we should expect btrfs development to be even faster than ZFS)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
              You do not consider not "being fully implemented" an issue? And no 3-parity RAID like ZFS RAIDZ3.

              snapshots are not as flexible as on ZFS, there still seem to be various bugs reported for people making many snapshots, and it seems that most distro developers think that the btrfs snapshot capability is insufficient to implement a convenient system rollback feature at the bootloader stage

              But the biggest issue by far is the free space issue. Finding the free space is complicated, managing it is difficult even with the buggy quota functionality, and it is a major hassle to deal with a full btrfs filesystem.

              btrfs cannot equal the functionality of ZFS, nor the stability of ZFS, despite having been in development for 6 years now. (yes, I know ZFS has been in development since 2001, but ZFS had a stable release in 2005, and since most of the functionality in btrfs was already known and understood when btrfs development started since ZFS already pioneered it, we should expect btrfs development to be even faster than ZFS)
              BTRFS doesn't have to be better than ZFS, just EXT4.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
                You do not consider not "being fully implemented" an issue? And no 3-parity RAID like ZFS RAIDZ3.

                snapshots are not as flexible as on ZFS, there still seem to be various bugs reported for people making many snapshots, and it seems that most distro developers think that the btrfs snapshot capability is insufficient to implement a convenient system rollback feature at the bootloader stage
                Lack of a feature is not a bug by any stretch.

                Why would you want rollback at the bootloader stage? Either do that after boot (if it's a small issue; it's already done by Snapper) or after the boot of the recovery environment (you need one in case of a serious issue anyway).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                  Lack of a feature is not a bug by any stretch.

                  Why would you want rollback at the bootloader stage? Either do that after boot (if it's a small issue; it's already done by Snapper) or after the boot of the recovery environment (you need one in case of a serious issue anyway).
                  Who said lack of a feature is a bug?

                  Quite a few people would like to be able to choose a rollback snapshot at bootloader time, judging from the effort that has been put in to accomplish it. But so far it has failed to work well with btrfs.

                  I'm not sure what you are talking about "do that after boot". You have to reboot to boot from a different snapshot.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    BTRFS doesn't have to be better than ZFS, just EXT4.
                    Unfortunately, btrfs is worse than ext4 in several ways, primarily reliability and free space issues, but also it is a poor choice for a swap file or for a large, random access file like that for a VM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
                      Who said lack of a feature is a bug?

                      Quite a few people would like to be able to choose a rollback snapshot at bootloader time, judging from the effort that has been put in to accomplish it. But so far it has failed to work well with btrfs.

                      I'm not sure what you are talking about "do that after boot". You have to reboot to boot from a different snapshot.
                      You said "You do not consider not "being fully implemented" an issue?", and issue is often an alias for bug.

                      Nope, Snapper restores snapshots at runtime just fine. No rebooting needed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
                        You do not consider not "being fully implemented" an issue? And no 3-parity RAID like ZFS RAIDZ3.

                        snapshots are not as flexible as on ZFS, there still seem to be various bugs reported for people making many snapshots, and it seems that most distro developers think that the btrfs snapshot capability is insufficient to implement a convenient system rollback feature at the bootloader stage

                        But the biggest issue by far is the free space issue. Finding the free space is complicated, managing it is difficult even with the buggy quota functionality, and it is a major hassle to deal with a full btrfs filesystem.

                        btrfs cannot equal the functionality of ZFS, nor the stability of ZFS, despite having been in development for 6 years now. (yes, I know ZFS has been in development since 2001, but ZFS had a stable release in 2005, and since most of the functionality in btrfs was already known and understood when btrfs development started since ZFS already pioneered it, we should expect btrfs development to be even faster than ZFS)
                        OK, I'm nearly positive you're trolling at this point. Either that, or your just severely uninformed. You've offered no evidence to back up your wildly inaccurate claims.

                        Why are snapshots not as flexible as ZFS?
                        What issue is there with finding free space (besides you not understanding how to use the userspace tools)?
                        Why should we expect btrfs developement to be faster than ZFS? (Hint: they don't have similar designs).

                        Please provide some reasoned evidence, as you've yet to back up any of your claims.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                          Nope, Snapper restores snapshots at runtime just fine. No rebooting needed.
                          False. You cannot "restore snapshots" without rebooting when certain changes have been made. For example, different kernel.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by benmoran View Post
                            OK, I'm nearly positive you're trolling at this point. Either that, or your just severely uninformed. You've offered no evidence to back up your wildly inaccurate claims.

                            Why are snapshots not as flexible as ZFS?
                            What issue is there with finding free space (besides you not understanding how to use the userspace tools)?
                            Why should we expect btrfs developement to be faster than ZFS? (Hint: they don't have similar designs).

                            Please provide some reasoned evidence, as you've yet to back up any of your claims.
                            You asked me to elaborate, and I did. Now you insult me and demand "evidence". And after the insult, you write "Please". Do you think that excuses your rudeness? That was a rhetorical question, by the way. Don't answer.

                            I am not interested in persuading you or writing a treatise with footnotes. I only elaborated because you asked. But now I am done with you. Read the btrfs email list if you want "evidence".

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
                              You asked me to elaborate, and I did. Now you insult me and demand "evidence". And after the insult, you write "Please". Do you think that excuses your rudeness? That was a rhetorical question, by the way. Don't answer.

                              I am not interested in persuading you or writing a treatise with footnotes. I only elaborated because you asked. But now I am done with you. Read the btrfs email list if you want "evidence".
                              Big claims require big evidence. All you've said is "This is bad, that is bad...", without actually providing any reasons.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X