Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's A Proposal To Switch Fedora 33 On The Desktop To Using Btrfs

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

  • #21
    andyprough Speaking about openSUSE..
    https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-.../msg00328.html

    Soon...

    Comment


    • #22
      Relevant discussion on Linux Unplugged last week with Fedora dev Neal Gompa:

      https://linuxunplugged.com/358

      Cheers,
      Mike

      Comment


      • #23
        BTRFS has been great for development with Docker. Its storage driver really works smoothly and takes full advantage of BTRFS snapshots.

        I was really left scratching my head when RedHat abandoned BTRFS to start something new right as BTRFS was stabilizing.
        Last edited by mmmbop; 06-26-2020, 03:28 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
          andyprough Speaking about openSUSE..
          Sorry, I have a policy against clicking links from sketchy people.

          Comment


          • #25
            One question - btrfs wiki states btrfs-prog version should be on par with kernel version.

            What is worse btrfs-progs>kernel btrfs-progs<kernel?

            This issue is overseen quickly during kernel Backporting Often you have to Backport btrfs-progs by hand. Because of dependency chains.

            Comment


            • #26
              That's it! Larabel is just posting these suggestions to Fedora so he can make clickbait articles from them!

              I'm not even mad. I think it's a smart idea!

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                Btrfs is not going anywhere
                Yeah, SUSE/OpenSUSE, Rockstor, Synology and others are not important

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
                  Oooh, look at how they placed KDE before GNOME in the list of desktops, that's a clear sign they think it is more important

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by stormcrow View Post
                    Better idea is to figure out what the most common hardware used for Fedora installations and adjust the defaults for file system, editors, etc etc to that type of installation, while still keeping security sensitive knobs set to secure and practical defaults. That's never going to happen because people prefer ideology to surveyed facts. It would require collecting installation time hardware surveys much like Steam and Ubuntu do that the tinfoil hat brigade keep very vocally criticizing the practice as if the sky is falling.
                    This is a bullshit approach, the entire point of DEFAULT is that there is ONLY ONE, so that it is the most tested and stable and good enough for most workloads.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by loganj View Post
                      looking at this article this decision makes no sense to me for desktops. i can understand to use it for servers due to some features of Btrfs. i thought that Btrfs still has many issues.
                      For desktop use this difference in benchmark you won't notice. If you need a partition with high random IO, create a separate one with xfs or btrfs nocow. Lower benchmark results don't take away all the benefits in functionality. Try it I'd say.

                      Other than that, the information on their mailing list was really educating. I didn't know about the inode separation for example
                      Last edited by EarthMind; 06-26-2020, 04:16 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X