Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs & Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

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

  • #16
    Maybe fractal trees can be made to work with btrfs if the trees are copy on write friendly. Everything in btrfs is copy on write, so that's an important quality in whatever data structure they use.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
      I think Gabe Newell put that empty "linux32" directory in the distribution just to get a rouse out of Michael and his readers.
      Yeah, because its not like there is a valid reason for the source engine to use a linux32 directory.

      Oh wait...

      Seriously, they're teasing and mocking us. But would they ever do it for real? Nope.
      The only trolling going on from Valve is the Half Life 3 trolling.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ChrisXY View Post
        I don't understand that argument. Just create a distribution agnostic tarball with the binaries that is tested and runs on Ubuntu. Packagers will do the rest.

        Take for example the Archlinux package for google chrome dev. It earlier used the .deb package, now uses the .rpm package. It works. It doesn't need to be their job.

        They just don't believe that an O.S. officially ranked at something like 1% of market share could ever bring them a single additionnal penny of operating result.
        They just do see additionnal developping costs, additionnal testing, some code redesigning as they probably have designed the entire game to run for DirectX.

        Eventhough it would take them a minute it still would be too much for them.

        The linux32 directory is 99,9999% chances being some server stuff related.
        Michael has been teasing for years now that some CS-native-linux will ever see day light one of that day, but nothing has been seeing yet.
        With Unreal Tournament 3, the other game that were awaited by all and never came, Icculus did show two screenshots. It's worst finally, as it shows that the game was ready to play but they didn't even wanted to sell it. Only lawyer department can lead to such stupid decisions. I'm 100% sure that UT3 has never been released for some lawyer related stupidity.

        Those are the two arguments to prevent games being ported to linux : 1% official market share and lawyers.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by markg85 View Post
          As for Fractal Trees. I found out about those and send a mail to phoronix since those things really seem to be scaling very well! The downside of those things is CPU bound. And they will certainly use your CPU. Perhaps even too much and that might be a potential issue.

          As for Fractal Trees being a drop in replacement for B-Trees.. Perhaps, don't know. Yet again, remember very carefullt that TukoDB (that uses Fractal trees) is a drop in replacement for InnoDB! That last part is very important, InnoDB!

          simply "replace" a current dataset build with B-Tree with a Fractal Tree is probably not very likely to happen since they likely store data different.
          Table engines are designed to be drop-in, but features will vary, however I don't know how it would be possible for one tree to be a drop-in for another tree. It is simply too low level. By definition it would seem as if they couldn't be drop-in since their format is different.
          While making a frac tree fs might be interesting, it would need to be written from scratch, unless I am mistaken.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Fry-kun View Post
            If f-trees are a drop-in replacement for b-trees then btrfs shouldn't have too much trouble adapting them...
            They're a "drop-in replacement" in that they support the same operations. They are a fundamentally different data structure that wouldn't be compatible with the existing on-disc format.

            So, if you want to use f-trees, you need to create a new filesystem. But you shouldn't. Why?

            Because F-Trees were created with databases in mind. They're optimized for operations that either don't exist in a regular filesystem, or aren't performance critical. They're trying to avoid fragmentation when inserting huge amounts of data in the middle of a B-Tree - an operation that's common in databases, uncommon in directory nodes and nonexistant in files.
            Current filesystems already have other methods in place to avoid seek times, which work quite well on the operations common in filesystems.


            I wonder why noone bothered to read the PDF linked in the news. Neither the reader who suggested it, nor Michael who considered it newsworthy, nor anyone in the forums who's been asking about it...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Flyser View Post
              Linux dedicated server *yawn*
              Quote.

              (stupid character limit)
              ## VGA ##
              AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
              Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

              Comment


              • #22
                So nothing new.

                Comment


                • #23
                  If you read the Fractal Tree PDF

                  You'll notice that fractal trees use lots of CPU time and memory storage (plus bandwidth) as a method of being able to write to disk at full speed.

                  They have to keep much of the index in memory in order to lay down data sequentially. They mention 1GB minimum.

                  But, according to their math, the fractal tree is better overall for read and write to a rotating disk. Interesting.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by hechacker1 View Post
                    You'll notice that fractal trees use lots of CPU time and memory storage (plus bandwidth) as a method of being able to write to disk at full speed.

                    They have to keep much of the index in memory in order to lay down data sequentially. They mention 1GB minimum.

                    But, according to their math, the fractal tree is better overall for read and write to a rotating disk. Interesting.
                    the bottleneck in a PC is the hard-drive not the cpu and not the ram i do have already 4gb of ram in my pc and i can upgrade it to 16gb ram for maybe 40 its cheap very cheap

                    the slowest part of my pc is my hard-driver a mechanic one with only 75mb/s

                    so please we really need fractal trees!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The year of the Linux desktop will never come

                      There will not ever be a widely succesful Linux desktop, because the desktop concept is pretty much dead.

                      Let's take a look at what's happening:
                      Ubiquitous computing: tablet, smartphones, coffeemachines, whatever...
                      The internet is not in full swing; it's just getting started! Plans are well underway to put a SoC into every device and hook it up to the internet. Protocols are underway.

                      So imagine you have an apointment on your tablet/phone, a ubiquitious speaker will wake you up the next morning (alarm clock), the coffeemachine will make sure your coffee is ready, the heater will have already warmed your house and when you walk out of the door with your stuff, the door on your car will unlock and the car will automatically drive you to your destination for your appointment. The EU thinks this will become the normal way of life around the year 2020.

                      Cloud computing (Bill Gates and Steve Jobs)
                      Rember the Microsoft vision of the future? Everyone will have a server in the wall (lol... wall?), somewhere in the house. What they mean is, of course, a server. This should power everything that you own. Windows tablet edition was Bill Gate's hobby project and part of this future vision.

                      Meanwhile Steve Jobs was working on his iDevices, which he claims to be part of the post-PC era. Many people seem to think that what he means is that we will do all of our work on tablets and smartphones. They are missing the point completely.

                      Let's rewind the clock and look at the introduction of te iMac. The "i" stands for "internet". And it all suddenly makes sence. iTunes: internetTunes; buying music from the internet for your internetPod. internetPhone: remember Steve saying, at unveiling the iPhones, that nobody needs apps, because you can use the web for webapps? Tada! And before the iPhone there was the internetPad (iPad) that they worked on.

                      iOS stands for internetOS. You can add webpages as icons on the homescreen, because that's what it was designed for.

                      Google's CEO (ex Sun) Eric Schmidt, said that his viseon for Google was that in order to get rid of the Microsoft monopoly, he simply needed the web as his Win32, because that could be run everywhere. The reason for Chrome was obviously making webapps runs faster (javascript engine boost).

                      AppStores are interim solutions
                      Sadly, the state of webapps is pretty painfull and HTMLv5 is stillnot quite there yet. Plus; you can't make money from running someone's webapp on the iPhone. 3G networks are painfull for doing more than just browse Phoronix. Here be appstores. Microsoft is more aggresive on this one as thei Metro interface is HTMLLv5-ish. And why would that be?

                      You will never take my desktop away from me, you avarage computern00bs!!! I will not code on a Tablet!
                      What do you mean by desktop? Are you sure you don't mean having a configuration work a large screen, a keyboard and a mouse? Just hook a big screen terminal with a LAN cable to your server and connect a keyboard and mouse to your screen terminal. Your IDE is running on your server. Personal Cloud Computing.

                      Cloud *ulgh*... buzzwords!
                      In case you still aren't aware of what Cloud realy stands for, it's; Distributed compute services and resources. In other words Plan 9 from Bell Labs. Jup; they were ahead of their time once again.

                      Conclusion
                      It's the death of Linux on the desktop and it's the birth of Linux on everything! Watch out for that AppleTV being just an iCloud (internetCloud) terminal comming to a store near you in 2000-something Meanwhile KDE is already kicking ass with OwnCloud and integration into the desktop and multiple work spaces. Fedoraa is already kicking ass with Cloud stuff that's underway to make your own homeserver, easy peasy style. And finaly; Gnome... It's dead Jim; they just don't know it yet...

                      And so Steam will never come to Linux. Simply because it's a x86 Desktop Computer Thing.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        OK, people say Valve has no plans to bring Steam to Linux anytime soon and the desktop is a dying idea anyway.
                        But for now, there's 4,102 Steam members in the Steam Group "We want Steam client for Linux!" and a Linux thread in the Steam Forums that goes on for 99 pages.
                        Yes, that a small percentage of total Steam users, but that's only the very vocal percentage and its likely many other Linux users feel the same.
                        I don't mind if Steam keeps getting brought up over and over here on Phoronix.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by downer View Post
                          OK, people say Valve has no plans to bring Steam to Linux anytime soon and the desktop is a dying idea anyway.
                          But for now, there's 4,102 Steam members in the Steam Group "We want Steam client for Linux!" and a Linux thread in the Steam Forums that goes on for 99 pages.
                          Yes, that a small percentage of total Steam users, but that's only the very vocal percentage and its likely many other Linux users feel the same.
                          I don't mind if Steam keeps getting brought up over and over here on Phoronix.
                          they still work in the steam clind I know this from multiple sources.

                          the cause why they do this is not so clear.

                          maybe only to have a joker in there hand in a gambling game with Xbox/microsoft
                          maybe because they want there own gaming console without microsoft tax.
                          maybe they just watch the grow of the linux market share.
                          if they get premium access to the next gen- xbox then maybe they don't release the linux clind or they don't make a linux based valve console.

                          its like people wana get windows cheaper and because of this they show microsoft that they also can do linux and then micorsoft gives away the windows cheaper.

                          only the valve CEO know why they spend money on the linux clind.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                            It's the death of Linux on the desktop...
                            Three windows replacements (as in removal) on desktops this year. Linux is already on desktops (not just "ready for") for 4-5 years.
                            I don't understand this "when will linux be on desktop" thing, it is already.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post

                              ....

                              I wonder why noone bothered to read the PDF linked in the news. Neither the reader who suggested it, nor Michael who considered it newsworthy, nor anyone in the forums who's been asking about it...
                              Speak for yourself please!
                              I did read it and found it interesting enough to send it to phoronix.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rohcQaH View Post
                                So, if you want to use f-trees, you need to create a new filesystem. But you shouldn't. Why?

                                Because F-Trees were created with databases in mind. They're optimized for operations that either don't exist in a regular filesystem, or aren't performance critical.
                                Yeah, I can't think of many cases where you're inserting a lot of keys into filesystems. Maybe extremely busy maildir servers? (I don't know.. even then, it sounds like this needs a much bigger job than anything I've ever had to work on, so maybe mail is a bad example.) It might be fun to try to build something on the idea, just to try it out as a replacement for reiserfs or something like that.

                                Even if it works, though, it doesn't make btrfs' structures "obsolete" because most filesystem loads don't have lots of insert activity. One of Linux's strengths (it pretty much creams every other OS at this) is its diversity of filesystems, instead of being crippled by relying on a jack-of-all-trades-but-master-at-none like ntfs or hfs+. Use the right tool for each mountpoint's job; there's never going to be one best answer that applies to all of them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X