Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SUSE Continues Working On Transactional Updates With Btrfs

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

  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
    ZFS has a similar model to btrfs,
    no, zfs does not use btrees, because it was designed before invention of cow btrees. i.e. zfs is obsolete, i have no use for filesystems which can't change size (this rules out xfs as well)
    Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
    ZFS is an excellent filesytem and more mature than btrfs
    on solaris. but on solaris you can't choose btrfs anyway
    Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
    so that can be another option, if one doesnt worrry too much about the BSD and GPL issue.
    and if one doesn't worry too much about downloading some unsupported broken shit from internet
    Last edited by pal666; 09-03-2018, 12:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by bitman View Post
    At least redhat.
    you are wrong twice. redhat didn't and redhat was already listed separately from several others
    Originally posted by bitman View Post
    And it is totally understandable. Reliability > features.
    what is totally understandable here is that you are having no clue. redhat doesn't support btrfs because redhat employs zero btrfs devs, so they just couldn't do it
    Originally posted by bitman View Post
    Speaking as someone who fell a victim to broken filesystem after deleting some old snapshots. No it was not any raid setup or anything fancy.
    i guess backups are also labeled as too fancy
    Originally posted by bitman View Post
    Apparently less than few years back mundane things like that could still break stuff.
    mundane things like that are not supported by any competing filesystem at all
    Last edited by pal666; 09-03-2018, 12:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • untore
    replied
    Coreos (containerlinuxOS) used to ship with btrfs in the early builds but then switched to ext4+overlay not sure now, ironically coreos was acquired by red hat.
    Is there a linux distro witch does the equivalent of opensuse with zfs? An Ubuntu flavor would even be OK.

    Leave a comment:


  • waxhead
    replied
    Originally posted by dfyt View Post

    I have had nothing be negative experiences with BTRFS and thats without a fancy setup. I recently backed up a 4TB drive to another identical drive, BTRFS used 200GB more with compression over XFS or even ZFS. No, it wastes space. Additionally whilst I haven't lost data I have often had times where the filesystem locks folders and you can't delete them etc. running it's repair tools does nothing and the only way to fix it was copy off, format and copy back. Sadly and I mean this honestly I wish it were even half as stable as FAT32 - features wise it's great but thats where it ends. I used to use openSuse and very quickly learnt to not have BTRFS as your root with that distro.
    I feel this has to be challenged.
    1. How much data did you copy?
    2. Was it large or small files?
    3. How did you find out that BTRFS did use over 200GB more than ZFS/XFS?
    4. Locked directories look like they could be subvolumes as Zan Lynx said. Are they?

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie68
    replied
    The snapshots of Btrfs implemented as openSUSE did is a blessing, I do not know why people criticize Btrfs so much, to me on my systems has always worked very well, I would struggle without especially at work.
    In the past I have received updates that have broken my system, it happened when I used Ubuntu and also with openSUSE, but having the ability to restore the system in a few minutes is priceless, especially when working with the PC.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zan Lynx
    replied
    Originally posted by dfyt View Post
    Additionally whilst I haven't lost data I have often had times where the filesystem locks folders and you can't delete them etc. running it's repair tools does nothing and the only way to fix it was copy off, format and copy back
    That's likely to happen when the "folder" is not a directory, but is a subvolume. You cannot delete a subvolume using "rmdir" or "rm -rf". You have to use the "btrfs" command: "btrfs subvolume delete <subvolume>".

    You can see the subvolumes with "btrfs subvolume list /" Or if you mounted a btrfs somewhere else like /data, "btrfs subvolume list /data"

    Leave a comment:


  • dfyt
    replied
    Originally posted by WolfpackN64 View Post

    That's one thing that always scares me about Btrfs. I don't want to "set up" my filesystem. I just want it to do what it was designed to do without worrying if any of its features are going to wreck my data.
    I have had nothing be negative experiences with BTRFS and thats without a fancy setup. I recently backed up a 4TB drive to another identical drive, BTRFS used 200GB more with compression over XFS or even ZFS. No, it wastes space. Additionally whilst I haven't lost data I have often had times where the filesystem locks folders and you can't delete them etc. running it's repair tools does nothing and the only way to fix it was copy off, format and copy back. Sadly and I mean this honestly I wish it were even half as stable as FAT32 - features wise it's great but thats where it ends. I used to use openSuse and very quickly learnt to not have BTRFS as your root with that distro.
    Last edited by dfyt; 09-02-2018, 05:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zan Lynx
    replied
    Originally posted by waxhead View Post

    The reason to stay away from snapshots (for beginners) is because defrag breaks reflinks and can increase space usage significantly. While there is nothing wrong with snapshots from a functional perspective it is easy to fool yourself if you don't know what you are doing and suddenly you are out of space.
    Beginners shouldn't be running defrag on everything. On hard drives the autodefrag option works pretty well and only defrags parts of a file as needed (like Firefox SQLite databases). On SSDs no one should care how many fragments the file is in because it doesn't matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie68
    replied
    For two years I have been using Btrfs with openSUSE both for / and for / home, never having data loss problems. The only time I lost my data was with Ubuntu using ext4, but this does not mean that ext4 is an inadequate file system.
    Having a bad experience with a file system can happen regardless of which file system is in use.

    Leave a comment:


  • RomuloP
    replied
    I can't see why people think snapshots are not working, I can say they are solid from 4.14+, I managed to do not sane things like maintaining 3000+ snapshots on RAID1 HDDs, mirrored to another HDD without a problem (until I noticed and cleaned it up), I have some very old partitions running fine, transitioned through 4 distro upgrades without pain... So I really don't get, honestly even if it failed I have locally 3 copies.

    I really do want to move from fedora workstation to Silverblue so I don't manage updates atomicity with snapshots anymore, but will only do it the day BTRFS is supported because no other solution can allow me to have insanely quick, so in-depth, 100% bookable and accessible restoration points on other machines that can just be booted as the original one if something goes wrong.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X