Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.8 Deprecates Btrfs

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by cjcox View Post
    Everybody (re)purchase RHEL 4.5
    moron, redhat does not sell rhel. it sells subscription, which can be used with any version.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
      Only the zealots and fanboys did not see this coming. ZFS has a 10 years proven track record
      only butthurt imbeciles would post such bullshit. linux zfs has zero years of track record.
      Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
      is ... has Oracle backing it
      guess what? btrfs has oracle backing it too. on linux, while zfs has negative oracle backing on linux.
      Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
      Where did you get Btrfs? SUSE and RHEL. And now only on SUSE.
      no, still on rhel too, moron. and everywhere else

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by edgmnt View Post
        They probably meant they were no longer developing BTRFS integration within RHEL, not that it was no longer being developed upstream.
        not integration, but backporting to old rhel kernel

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pal666 View Post
          only butthurt imbeciles would post such bullshit. linux zfs has zero years of track record.
          guess what? btrfs has oracle backing it too. on linux, while zfs has negative oracle backing on linux.
          no, still on rhel too, moron. and everywhere else
          Usually you're more aggressive on the forums than I like, even when I agree with you. But I can't argue with you here.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by henrik View Post
            Neither ZFS or BTRFS gives me what I need so I just run ext4 with an intrusion detection system + regular backups. I need to know about (and recover from) if files are modified or deleted, no matter if it was me, a virus, a kernel bug or crappy hardware that did it. ZFS and BTRFS only takes care of the last two cases (or very last one). Only an intrusion detection system (which keeps track of all my files) + regular backup can cover for all cases. Or?
            The intrusion detection system is really simple. It's a little command called "integrit" which builds a database of all files and then lets me diff changes month over month.
            Obviously snapshots are poor mans backup, filesystem won't protect you from a hardware failures, but can warn you in some cases, however zfs (or btrfs) can simplify some of your operations compared to ext4. Snapshots save space for backups (you still need another box for it), zfs send/receive backups are faster. zfs diff can show you difference between snapshots etc.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Stellarwind View Post

              Obviously snapshots are poor mans backup, filesystem won't protect you from a hardware failures, but can warn you in some cases, however zfs (or btrfs) can simplify some of your operations compared to ext4. Snapshots save space for backups (you still need another box for it), zfs send/receive backups are faster. zfs diff can show you difference between snapshots etc.
              I disagree on the level that Btrfs and ZFS have inbuilt RAID which does protect you from hardware failures to the extent that there's redundancy in your data storage. It is, of course, no substitute for backups. You always have to ask yourself how irreplaceable your data is. Should it be duplicated to another building? Should there be a copy in another city? Should an emergency backup be stored in a vault?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                I disagree on the level that Btrfs and ZFS have inbuilt RAID which does protect you from hardware failures to the extent that there's redundancy in your data storage.
                Ofc, in the context of using zfs snapshots as a backup, what I meant was that it won't help if controller suddenly starts sending garbage to disks or memory corruption etc, hence snapshots != true backup

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Stellarwind View Post
                  Ofc, in the context of using zfs snapshots as a backup, what I meant was that it won't help if controller suddenly starts sending garbage to disks or memory corruption etc, hence snapshots != true backup
                  Well, true backups have same problems, really. But having ECC RAM, checksumming filesystem, RAID, redundant backups and routine recoveries to verify backups aren't corrupted helps a lot

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                    Well, true backups have same problems, really. But having ECC RAM, checksumming filesystem, RAID, redundant backups and routine recoveries to verify backups aren't corrupted helps a lot
                    He is saying that a zfs snapshot is still inside the same machine, so anything that destroys the array will probably nuke the snapshot too.

                    full backups are mostly against "stuff that nukes the machine".

                    Snapshots are convenient for other reasons, (like accidental deletions, or fast rollback of updates) not for backup.
                    Last edited by starshipeleven; 18 May 2016, 02:28 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Good riddance. See you!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X