OpenSUSE Looks To Switch To Btrfs For Next Release

[liam]

liam, telling others how to do things will always end in failure because you are the only person in the world competent enough to implement your vision. If you want things to get done, you will need to spend your time doing them yourself instead of posting on forums in the vain hope that one of the incompetent masses will somehow manage to do what you want.

With that said, I look forward to seeing the results of your work.

Let this stand as a testament to your inability to argue as an adult.
You are now on my ignore list, so you need not respond to my response on the other thread.

[ryao]

Let this stand as a testament to your inability to argue as an adult.
You are now on my ignore list, so you need not respond to my response on the other thread.

You have ideas that everyone else consider infeasible. You are the only one with the motivation to try implementing them anyway. If you think they can be done, by all means try. If you succeed, you will demonstrate that you were the only competent one. There is nothing to argue.

[kernelOfTruth]

If btrfs had an analog to ZFS' ztest tool, this would have been caught a long time ago.

With that said, I just passed on the link to the Gentoo kernel team. Thanks for posting it.

they do seem to have tests (xfstest ?!) but that doesn't seem to cover the wide range of zfs tests (?), yet


anyways, there's another one on the highly critical side:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/28394

there's another one: that the filesystem (superblock ?) isn't written to when it's mounted read-only - but I currently don't have its name at hand


with using btrfs so it probably means: using the latest rc and/or the latest stable + patchset from next kernel release/btrfs-next

to be sure that everything works as expected


I'll monitor progress closely - since, unfortunately, zfs can't be used in all cases for me

but where I can, zfs seems to be capable to ensure data integrity more

[ryao]

they do seem to have tests (xfstest ?!) but that doesn't seem to cover the wide range of zfs tests (?), yet


anyways, there's another one on the highly critical side:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/28394

there's another one: that the filesystem (superblock ?) isn't written to when it's mounted read-only - but I currently don't have its name at hand


with using btrfs so it probably means: using the latest rc and/or the latest stable + patchset from next kernel release/btrfs-next

to be sure that everything works as expected


I'll monitor progress closely - since, unfortunately, zfs can't be used in all cases for me

but where I can, zfs seems to be capable to ensure data integrity more

The XFS Test Suite tests the VFS API for POSIX conformance. It does not test the filesystem's resilience to unclean unmounts. Its design does not permit that as it would mean crashing the system running them. Passing them also does not mean 100% POSIX conformance. LLNL uses them to test ZFSOnLinux and so far, there have been several patches merged to fix POSIX compatibility bugs (specific to the Linux port) that they missed.

As for ZFS fitting your use cases, is the main problem for you compatibility with the realtime kernels? It has been on my to do list, but I am right now in the middle of a memory management rewrite that should make ZFSOnLinux usable on 32-bit systems, such as the Raspberry Pi.