Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Approved: Fedora 33 Desktop Variants Defaulting To Btrfs File-System

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

  • Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    i only see something wrong with you

    it's well-known fact. inferior oses come with rigid containers, linux comes with building blocks out of which you can build containers which will suit you and that allowed linux containers to dominate. this is why when you say "container" you mean "linux" rather than "bsd" or "sun"
    you post random words without knowing their meaning
    Attack the messenger. Sorry man.. truth is hard. Do the hard work Linux! Engineer, be exceptional. I want that, I would love to see linux change it's philosophy and shine. Go get container ID's in ps and top.. it's about time.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by kloczek View Post
      Could you please as well tell why in that compartion ZFS is so many times mentioned when it comes what has btrfs?
      because that's a comparison from article "2. related work 2.1 zfs."
      Originally posted by kloczek View Post
      Or what btrf offer which ZFS doesn't??
      moron, can't you read every line of comparison? btrfs works on single drive, btrfs uses btree of extents which is more space and time efficient, btrfs checksums individual pages, btrfs can clone from clone, btrfs has raid 1 and 0. and not on that list, but still important: btrfs can be resized
      Originally posted by kloczek View Post
      Since btrfs has no such thing like ARC
      since you have no such thing as brain. arc is in-memory structure, it has nothing to do with filesystem. and btw linux has plenty of caching mechanisms
      Originally posted by kloczek View Post
      deduplication in btrfs is very limite causeing big IO overhead.
      You would know that if you would be using dedup on btrfs.
      there are many different implementations of dedup for btrfs with different properties and overheads. you would know that if you weren't mindlessly reposting zfs propaganda
      pal666
      Senior Member
      Last edited by pal666; 16 July 2020, 04:13 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

        Attack the messenger. Sorry man.. truth is hard. Do the hard work Linux! Engineer, be exceptional. I want that, I would love to see linux change it's philosophy and shine. Go get container ID's in ps and top.. it's about time.
        So what Linux changed so far in OS philosophy?
        PS. I'm assuming that you feel weak on btrfs vs zfs field and you want to start new subject. Am I right?
        kloczek
        Phoronix Member
        Last edited by kloczek; 16 July 2020, 04:07 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pal666 View Post
          btrfs works on single drive, btrfs uses btree of extends which is more space and time efficient, btrfs checksums individual pages, btrfs can clone from clone, btrfs has raid 1 and 0. and not on that list, but still important: btrfs can be resized
          zfs works on a single drive, zfs is quite space efficient as well, zfs has checksum on every single block in the tree, zfs can clone from a clone, zfs has raid levels and combinations of nesting that we don't even have RAID-X numbers for, and zfs can be resized as well (grown).

          : shrug : maybe you need to learn a bit more before you attack people?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pal666 View Post
            buy larger drives, or wipe and reinstall
            you can't come up with smarter questions?
            After reading the bug report, that I doubt you read, that Fedora referenced I came to the conclusion that they are trying find simple & easy ways for users to manage their systems without forcing the user through complicated steps. To me that sounds a lot like WINDOWS, but I doubt you have ever used WINDOWS or it's SERVER flavors. That is why I made references to "What do Windows users do".

            Your comment suggests that Fedora WANTS users to work through complicated steps to manage storage space within the system, but the link in the article and the Fedora bug report referenced by the page from that link don't support your view.

            From what I can tell:
            Fedora wants their system administration to be easier, so users don't have to follow complicated steps to use all available storage space currently in the system; sounds like a noble goal to me. The linked Fedora page, that I doubt you read, focused on a discussion of methods to have 2 different mount points built on unique partitions and thus having a fixed size (a byproduct of their installer, IIRC) both access the same remaining "free space" in the system, and it looks like they figured out a way to do it. For some users that will solve some problems. It does not yet appear to solve the inevitable problem of actually running out of storage space on existing media where the only solution left is adding another drive and possibly moving 1 or more mount points and their associated files to the new larger storage media; a complex and complicated task that newbies would certainly mess up (a goal Fedora is trying to avoid) and experienced users generally groan about while accomplishing the task.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
              That's biased.
              no
              Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
              ZFS does not need fsck and having it would not help it do anything better.
              everyone needs fsck
              Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
              It has no journal to replay but does have the checksum it validates on each read. if it's wrong it will automatically repair (if another source exists)
              btrfs also has checksum. and btrfs has another sources even on single drive.
              Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
              ZFS also supports clones and writable snapshots. BTRFS isn't unique here.
              you fail to read. btrfs clones are first class citizens, you can clone from clone. on zfs you can't
              Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
              ZFS's deduplication is being rewritten to be ram friendly.
              btrfs dedup is not set in stone either
              Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
              Where it is true ZFS was designed for the enterprise and large storage. As we often find in computing what was once only available to
              supercomputers is, given time, in every smart phone. Storage data management of our personal systems is looking closer to what enterprise was using a few decades ago.
              smartphones still have only one drive

              Comment


              • Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                truth is hard. Do the hard work Linux! Engineer, be exceptional. I want that, I would love to see linux change it's philosophy and shine.
                just look around. linux's shine dominates. you have to be blind to not see it

                Comment


                • Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                  zfs works on a single drive
                  "requires reinstall from backups on every bad block" rather than "works"
                  Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                  , zfs is quite space efficient as well
                  it is explicitly less efficient than btrfs
                  Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                  , zfs has checksum on every single block in the tree,
                  that's one checksum per 128kb block instead of 32 checksums of btrfs
                  Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                  zfs can clone from a clone
                  i trust more that paper than you
                  Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                  , zfs has raid levels and combinations of nesting that we don't even have RAID-X numbers for
                  btrfs raid 0 and 1 also don't have numbers, i use such numbers only because they are similar, but they are superior
                  Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                  , and zfs can be resized as well (grown).
                  and people can fly(down)
                  Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                  : shrug : maybe you need to learn a bit more before you attack people?
                  i'll wait for you

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                    no
                    everyone needs fsck
                    btrfs also has checksum. and btrfs has another sources even on single drive.

                    you fail to read. btrfs clones are first class citizens, you can clone from clone. on zfs you can't
                    btrfs dedup is not set in stone either
                    smartphones still have only one drive
                    I don't understand.. why can't you have ZFS on a single device?

                    pool: zpool
                    state: ONLINE
                    scan: none requested
                    config:

                    NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
                    zpool ONLINE 0 0 0
                    ada0p2 ONLINE 0 0 0

                    errors: No known data errors


                    Looks fine to me. Realistically you want something that is as paranoid about data integrity as ZFS on the most flaky of drives.. such as usb sticks. it's good there, it's also cross platform. (linux, bsd, macos, solaris, windows etc)

                    And you can clone a clone, a clone is just a writable snapshot. btw, ZFS also has another level of "snapshot" called a bookmark where it can undo everything, even deleted volumes (datasets)

                    Pal666... Lets just be honest here.. you just don't like the licence right? Because you head it was "anti-linux" or something? It's not, the FSF was wrong about it. ZFS is a benefit to Linux because it allows it to do a lot of great things. It allows Linux to compete with NetApp and EMC... I'll bet there are hundreds of people reading this who run Linux VM's backed by NetApp.. wouldn't it be cool if they ran Linux VM's on Linux? ZFS allows us to do this today, the capabilities for enterprise storage are already there.

                    Let the past die, it was a lie.
                    k1e0x
                    Senior Member
                    Last edited by k1e0x; 16 July 2020, 04:27 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                      there are many different implementations of dedup for btrfs with different properties and overheads. you would know that if you weren't mindlessly reposting zfs propaganda
                      So which one is working at lease the same well as that one which was in ZFS in 2013?
                      PS. I'm not asking about the same quality/performance/resources consumption as it is now in Solaris 11.4 last ASRU.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X