Stratis Is Red Hat's Plan For Next-Gen Linux Storage Without Btrfs

[starshipeleven]

I hate it to say it, I know it's -- FUD, but..... Unix Philosophy FTW!

fixed.

God how annoying is when people can't understand that Unix Philosophy isn't about stitching together pre-existing crap.

[starshipeleven]

A journaling filesystem for a ssd world I dont get it.

FYI: also F2FS has journaling, and UBIFS (most advanced raw flash filesystem) has journaling.

Not using journaling is plain fucking bad, period. It exposes you to full partition loss in event of power failure or sudden reboots/crashes while writing. Journaling exposes only to data loss while the filesystem itself would remain operational. CoW allows you to avoid ANY data loss at all.

Storage technology can only adapt to that, because there are no other ways to avoid data loss.

I would say whatever its their enterprise distro. But they implement it in fedora, where it makes little sense.

Newsflash, Fedora is their Beta Testing distro. Where the "should be stable but I'm NOT pushing this to RHEL yet" stuff goes.

I will hear soon the first people that say you have to install apple for better filesystems than linux has.

I'm not getting how the "RHEL/CentOS/Fedora drops btrfs" relates to lack of decent filesystems on Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Linux Mint (just to cite some well-known user-friendly distros).

[bug77]

Newsflash, Fedora is their Beta Testing distro. Where the "should be stable but I'm NOT pushing this to RHEL yet" stuff goes.

I wouldn't say "beta" because that sort of implies instability/incompleteness. I see Fedora more like a proving ground for new technologies. The worthy one get pulled into RHEL.

[Pajn]

like a proving ground for new technologies

What is your definition of beta?

No matter what makeup you put on the pig, it's still a pig.

[bug77]

What is your definition of beta?

No matter what makeup you put on the pig, it's still a pig.

The idea is Fedora may at times include technologies that work perfectly fine for home usage, but don't make the cut for enterprise usage.

[linuxgeex]

XFS and EXT4 have online resizing (growth) but XFS is still missing offline shrinking so I'm baffled why Red Hat chose it.

LVM and MD can do snapshots, RAID, and emulate sub-volumes via online resizing, moving free space between multiple filesystems, then merging them at mount time to give the appearance of a "parent".

EXT4 has data-level checksums. It's done in hardware. If you have faulty hardware then you may be in trouble, but checksums won't save you from that - they will only report it. EXT4's metadata checksums will also report the hardware failure to you. If the failure is within in the journal window, a replay will fix it. You'll need data write journalling to a separate device on a different interface if you want data-level checksums to be able to protect you from data write corruption.

I've seen numerous mentions that BTRFS can protect you from data write corruption. This is a lie because it is a partial truth. It can save you from some instances of data write corruption. For example if you have a RAID1 setup and a faulty cable on one drive. However hardware level checksums are already mitigating that failure. CRC32 reduces the odds of bad data being written or read to roughly 1 in 4 billion. We do billions of writes but even flakey hardware gets it right the vast majority of the time, so chances are good that the existing hardware checksums will save your bacon.

None of these save you if the data is corrupted in memory buffers before it is sent to the block layer, or if damaged data exceeds ECC code, parity recovery, or checksum detection rates. If you want safety at that level there is no replacement for full journalling - data and metadata - to a separate device, ideally over a network.

[yogi_berra]

My thoughts exactly. Diversity and choice are something to be celebrated in Linux land, unless it's developed by Canonical, it appears.

When the CEO of a company changes its direction on a whim, dropping tools and changing focus seemingly depending on his ADD, it tends to create friction.

[blackiwid]

FYI: also F2FS has journaling, and UBIFS (most advanced raw flash filesystem) has journaling.

Not using journaling is plain fucking bad, period. It exposes you to full partition loss in event of power failure or sudden reboots/crashes while writing. Journaling exposes only to data loss while the filesystem itself would remain operational. CoW allows you to avoid ANY data loss at all.

But BTRFS has no journaling right? I get that all non-cow FS should have journaling? But COW FS don't need that? If not I am happy to learning google gives me no clear answer to that.

Newsflash, Fedora is their Beta Testing distro. Where the "should be stable but I'm NOT pushing this to RHEL yet" stuff goes.

Well then as example making nvidia drivers easy to install no sense. If its only some alpha/beta software that you probably only test stuff in a virtual machine and never use it. My dad uses it, it can easily be updated through gnome-software, why does a pure beta of redhat need that?

For me it would have the potential to become the ubuntu killer, but I start to doubt that. I went away to use nixos, but I am aware that nixos or guixsd is no distro that will ever be in the top distro section, aperently fedora project has no interest in that.

I don't understand why beeing a testing plattform for some GOOD technologies must be incompatible to become one if not the major desktop linux. I mean they had first down systemd which except some hater minority most people love, they had the most polished gnome desktop first...

But this feature will not be on that positive list, at least if they would be so retarded to remove btrfs from the installer as option.

I'm not getting how the "RHEL/CentOS/Fedora drops btrfs" relates to lack of decent filesystems on Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Linux Mint (just to cite some well-known user-friendly distros).

Well I talk about good linux not the garbage linuxes either nobody uses cause it has aids artwork (opensuse) and version numbers who nobody understands not to talk about 15 different versioning systems. 1click install garbage through the browser (I avoid to use browsers as much as possible, I don't need new reasons to use the browser).

And the Ubuntu commutiy that acticly tries to fuck up everythnig driven by people with evil intentions.

Well my fazit about this is probably don't trust companies with distributions at all, Debian / Archlinux / nixos / guix sd.

I just wonder if they use fedora as beta (which they do I know) if at some point only the maintainer use it, how much beta-testing worth is it then? Or do they write then in the end bots to test it out?

So you can't just say fuck the users, we only want to beta test, if we loose then 90% of our anyway low number of users it has no negative effect on our ability to find bugs.

I would not be pissed if they would only stated we do that other thing, too. But dropping the support sounds to me that they romeve it from the installer, which would be really really hurtful for them.

[blackiwid]

I bet if this came from Canonical everyone would be shitting on it.

They should have invested on bcachefs instead.

I am shitting on them. They start to slowly become the new Canonical, first they derivate from their open value advertising nvidia blob drivers, now this, a technical dumb move...

Btw, I even had a discussion, back then when I used fedora, with the a maintainer about btrfs support. I used back then btrfs on a whole disk without partitions, It works perfectly in general, but each time the updater updated the kernel + grub, it throw an error or warning, and did not update grub, when I then manually called:

grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg

it worked just fine.

So some stupid check in a kernel/ grub package update resulted a false positive error. But because this feature is not supported they WONTFIX it.
One of the reasons I switched away from fedora, Now with that context that make sense they never really liked btrfs and triet to make it a success.

In the end somehow that ended in a discussion about secureboot which I probably called as a sidenote garbage or evil or something like that.

That gave me even a worse taste that redhat employers are such political people with lets say strong oppinions, I am a privat user and dont get payed for that, so if I post strong oppinions on the internet I dont represent a company.

I still didnt leave fedora with a bad taste, I even use it for some relatives, but it just dosn't fit my needs anymore (atomic upgrades, declerative management / migration style) fits more my needs, much cleaner and distros dont slowly start to collect garbage and all that problems with state, that bites you slowly but shurly in your ass in the long run), but slowly I get here ubuntu vibes, which I used prior to fedora.

[blackiwid]

FYI: also F2FS has journaling, and UBIFS (most advanced raw flash filesystem) has journaling.

Not using journaling is plain fucking bad, period. It exposes you to full partition loss in event of power failure or sudden reboots/crashes while writing. Journaling exposes only to data loss while the filesystem itself would remain operational. CoW allows you to avoid ANY data loss at all.

hmm my last longer aswer aperently the forum ate, but I try it in short again:
so does btrfs use journaling? google don't really answers me that, also not the btrfs wiki.
I get that non-cow fs should use journaling, but doesnt make cow that unnessasary?

to the fedora thing, I just wonder if they really don't care about their user count, what is it worth to release a beta if nobody uses it? So they should care at least a bit about the fedora users, too. Also a bit sad cause I could see fedora as one of the major destop distros, sadly it seems to scew that up guaranteed each time somehow.