Btrfs SIG Established For Advancing Btrfs Interests On Fedora

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Quackdoc
    Senior Member
    • Oct 2020
    • 5063

    #21
    Originally posted by Vermilion View Post

    I don't know why you don't consider creating a space for like-minded people with its own mailing list and stuff to collaborate and plan future efforts as a valid goal on its own. That's what the majority of current SIGs are about, with similarly worded goals/missions.

    These points were all taken from the original SIG announcement, linked in today's post which is just a confirmation that it is now operational.
    Id still like to see an collection of issues they are out to solve. Most of the sigs are very clear about what they do, they help maintain collections of software, or they help solve a decently sized collection of issues. as far as this goes, so far it seems like maybe a handful softwares and an fs. seems like a lot less they do then other sigs.

    As i've asked in multiple different ways now, How many issues are present with btrfs on fedora that it warrents a dedicated sig for it?

    Comment

    • woddy
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2023
      • 280

      #22
      Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

      really? I don't even understand how it *can* lack features, it's a kernel thing right? As for graphical tools, I do get that, but is that within scope of a SIG to develop? I don't really understand the scope of the issues it has, but then again, I don't use fedora lately, and being arch, maybe I take for granted how easy arch is to setup things... But if setting up btrfs to be consistent requires fedora to have a dedicated sig for it then good I guess. I just don't understand how many problems it would need to have for a dedicated sig
      It's not easy! It's easy for you and me who know how to do it, but for the "common" user it's not easy, that's the difference between what is default and what is not. When a distribution decides to use a software by default, it must ensure that the user has a good experience and that everything works well and if the software is complex, it needs more work. It is no coincidence that distributions like openSUSE that ship it by default, not only created graphical tools for management, but also cares about continuous improvement and new features. That's how open source software works.​

      Comment

      • pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx
        Senior Member
        • Jul 2020
        • 1582

        #23
        Originally posted by Old Grouch View Post

        I just wish for file versioning, and quasi-continuous snapshots, like NILFS2 (all synchronous writes checkpointed, asynchronous writes at regular short (configurable) intervals; any checkpoint can be converted to a snapshot).
        Ooh that sounds cool, I've never played with NILFS2.

        Comment

        • Old Grouch
          Senior Member
          • Apr 2020
          • 694

          #24
          Originally posted by pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx View Post

          Ooh that sounds cool, I've never played with NILFS2.


          Note the things it does not support:

          Features which NILFS2 does not support yet:
          • atime
          • extended attributes
          • POSIX ACLs
          • quotas
          • fsck
          • defragmentation
          ​This is not to say it is useless. I ran it for about a decade, with no data loss, except for a single upstream driver issue, that is, the problem was not in the NILFS2 codebase.

          It is not for everybody, but has some interesting features, which I wish had been incorporated into btrfs or bcachefs. It is not as fast as other filesystems. The trivial rollback of a file you just (accidentally) deleted is wonderful, should you ever need it.

          Comment

          • pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx
            Senior Member
            • Jul 2020
            • 1582

            #25
            Originally posted by q2dg View Post
            I would like Stratis (https://stratis-storage.github.io) was taken seriourly
            Even Red Hat doesn't take Stratis seriously. 6 years later and it doesn't have a checksum layer like dm-verity.

            Comment

            • _r00t-
              Phoronix Member
              • Jan 2013
              • 87

              #26
              Great... BTRFS needs more attention.

              Comment

              • Veto
                Senior Member
                • Jun 2012
                • 545

                #27
                Originally posted by _r00t- View Post
                Great... BTRFS needs more attention.
                Indeed. If only Ubuntu would fix their new installer to support a proper installation on BTRFS...

                Comment

                • _r00t-
                  Phoronix Member
                  • Jan 2013
                  • 87

                  #28
                  Originally posted by Veto View Post

                  Indeed. If only Ubuntu would fix their new installer to support a proper installation on BTRFS...
                  It would be great to see official BTRFS support in Ubuntu Linux and of course to Red Hat Enterprise Linux again in the future(e.g. 10.5 version).

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X