Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora Cloud 35 Approved To Use Btrfs By Default

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

  • intelfx
    replied
    Originally posted by jochendemuth View Post

    Well, when my Fedora 33 install using BTRFS got corrupted I had to learn that there is no fsck util for it and that my install was lost. The lack of ability to repair is a big no-no for root file systems.
    A complete root file system loss hasn't happened to me with any other file system in the last 30 years (ext[234], xfs, zfs - hell, even MSFT ones). This file system is just dangerous.

    I understand and generally appreciate the dogmatic focus on "compatible licenses" for including software packages into its distribution, but Fedora needs to make it easier to bring in certain 3rd party software. For graphic card drivers Fedora finally - after many years of suffering - caved and improved the install process for NVidia drivers - the nouveau driver will never support current hardware. Same needs to happen for modern file systems: zfs is proven, stable, and well maintained. How long will it take for Fedora to realize that BTRFS will not catch up? Instead of wasting developer resources on a losing battle, commit them to simplify zfs driver install, support of zfs as root file system, improve OS config to backup and manage package upgrades using zfs snapshots.
    So, you dislike btrfs intensely because it has no useful fsck, and at the same time advocate for zfs, which... also has no fsck, not at all, not even a btrfs restore-type tool?

    Leave a comment:


  • intelfx
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    There's a reason not to ever use btrfs: there are basically no tools to recover data from it in case it becomes broken (aside from grep'ping which won't allow you to restore anything but basic text files)
    man btrfs restore and stop spreading FUD.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by jochendemuth View Post

    Well, when my Fedora 33 install using BTRFS got corrupted I had to learn that there is no fsck util for it
    This is incorrect. Btrfs certainly has a fsck utility. It is just called by a different name now.

    https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfsck

    Leave a comment:


  • jochendemuth
    replied
    Originally posted by mykolak View Post
    When I got my ext4 broken none of tools made any real help, so... if breakage is simple btrfs tools is your help, if not I don't think "advanced" ext4 tools would help unless you are lucky. It seems rule is still the same, duplicate/backup important data.
    You probably have not noticed the standard recovery tools at work because in most distributions they run automatically at system mount time in case of issues. While the file system specific fsck tools don't solve "every" problem they have proven effective in the vast majority of issues for decades.

    I am excited about the prospect of modern file systems. The opportunities provided by cheap and fast snapshots, subvolumes, etc. are enormous. Fedora has clearly realized that, too. Unfortunately, I fear that Fedora will do a big disservice by pushing a file system that is not ready for root file systems. If many people, like me, divert away from the default file system because of bad experiences, it will delay the development of the real OS level improvements on another, stable file system. I think they traded reliability for speed of deployment here. That's a bad compromise for such a fundamental part of an operating system.

    Leave a comment:


  • jochendemuth
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    There's a reason not to ever use btrfs: there are basically no tools to recover data from it in case it becomes broken (aside from grep'ping which won't allow you to restore anything but basic text files). Of course, if you back it up each hour - that's not a problem.
    Well, when my Fedora 33 install using BTRFS got corrupted I had to learn that there is no fsck util for it and that my install was lost. The lack of ability to repair is a big no-no for root file systems.
    A complete root file system loss hasn't happened to me with any other file system in the last 30 years (ext[234], xfs, zfs - hell, even MSFT ones). This file system is just dangerous.

    I understand and generally appreciate the dogmatic focus on "compatible licenses" for including software packages into its distribution, but Fedora needs to make it easier to bring in certain 3rd party software. For graphic card drivers Fedora finally - after many years of suffering - caved and improved the install process for NVidia drivers - the nouveau driver will never support current hardware. Same needs to happen for modern file systems: zfs is proven, stable, and well maintained. How long will it take for Fedora to realize that BTRFS will not catch up? Instead of wasting developer resources on a losing battle, commit them to simplify zfs driver install, support of zfs as root file system, improve OS config to backup and manage package upgrades using zfs snapshots.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snaipersky
    replied
    Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post

    One downside comes into my mind. XFS doesnt support resize.
    Doesn't support shrink, You can grow it.

    Leave a comment:


  • CochainComplex
    replied
    Originally posted by ezst036 View Post

    .... I think XFS is probably better than EXT4 in most instances so there really way.
    One downside comes into my mind. XFS doesnt support resize*.

    edit: as pointed out correctly by Snaipersky only shrinking does not work.
    Last edited by CochainComplex; 17 June 2021, 05:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mykolak
    replied
    Originally posted by Veto View Post
    Or just keep using BTRFS with selective NOCOW on the relevant files/folders (chattr +C).
    Do not use VM images without NOCOW...
    BTW, I don't know about Fedora, but openSUSE disables checksums for /var by default, so unless running database in some other place no extra changes should be done.

    Leave a comment:


  • mykolak
    replied
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    There's a reason not to ever use btrfs: there are basically no tools to recover data from it in case it becomes broken (aside from grep'ping which won't allow you to restore anything but basic text files). Of course, if you back it up each hour - that's not a problem.
    When I got my ext4 broken none of tools made any real help, so... if breakage is simple btrfs tools is your help, if not I don't think "advanced" ext4 tools would help unless you are lucky. It seems rule is still the same, duplicate/backup important data.

    Leave a comment:


  • mykolak
    replied
    Originally posted by brent View Post
    How much CPU does brtfs use these days? That's a metric that is rarely benchmarked, but might be quite important. AFAIR it used to be quite bad. with btrfs.
    Not too much, I haven't noticed any real difference when changed ext4 to btrfs on my laptop. Also, no noticeable difference in containers on server too (apart from much easier managing with btrfs).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X