Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Hat Plans To Deploy Next-Gen Stratis Storage For Fedora 28

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by untore View Post
    from the stratis doc

    Unfortunately, existing VMFs aren’t easily used on RHEL. ZFS isn’t an option RHEL can embrace due to licensing (Ubuntu notwithstanding.) Btrfs has no licensing issues, but after many years of work it still has significant technical issues that may never be resolved.
    Also if you read more you find out it is not a new filesystem but a layer that uses lvm,xfs,etc to achieve the same things offered by btrfs/zfs
    After reading the analysis part of the document, surprisingly enough, the idea is to only use device-mapper + XFS in the short term while submitting patches to LVM2 until it supports the capabilities that Stratis will need.

    These two efforts will go on in parallel, likely informing the development of both Stratis (device-mapper + XFS + integration layer) and LVM2 (RH contributed patches).

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
      Nobody uses bluetooth for the internet traffic.
      Hello, my name is Nobody.

      (I even have older PDAs that do Bluetooth DUN)

      Originally posted by untore View Post
      Also if you read more you find out it is not a new filesystem but a layer that uses lvm,xfs,etc to achieve the same things offered by btrfs/zfs
      Currently, XFS does not checksums the data (though recent versions have started to checksum the metadata). It's something that BTRFS is offering my that would be severly lacking in Stratis.

      Currently XFS doesn't support Copy-on-Write or Log-structured, instead it writes inplace like ext4/3/2. I prefere FS that are gentler on my flash media, like BTRFS, ZFS, UDF, F2FS,etc. (But work has begun to add this feature)

      Currently, LVM can only offer full-volume snapshotting.
      BTRFS and ZFS offer much more features :
      - multiple subvolume snapshots used in parallel (which is absolutely over-used by some containers systems like docker)
      - reflinking, accross subvolume (important for some backup strategies, and also for dedup in general).

      (Also, my distro is openSuSE which seem to be rather competent at putting a working BTRFS system together).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
        Go to the north Korea to restrict freedom of expression and shoot people to the head. Kim Jong-un would be proud of you.


        (since none has posted this, I had to)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by shmerl View Post
          What's their main reason to make a new filesystem, instead of improving Btrfs or ZFS?
          Stratis isn't a filesystem per-se but more like a Logical Volume Manager. For example the filesystem used is XFS. https://stratis-storage.github.io/St...wareDesign.pdf

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by InsideJob View Post
            I agree 100%, Red Hat is a fascist corporate entity.
            Ahem, he never said RH is a fascist corporate entity, so wtf are you doing?

            You FBI dudes... erhm I mean "conspiracy theorists" should up your game if you really want to smokescreen .... erhm I mean "open sheeple's eyes" properly.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
              Ahem, he never said RH is a fascist corporate entity, so wtf are you doing?
              I can never tell if WhackJob is trolling or is extremely bad at satirical humor.

              Comment


              • #37
                If it was Canonical ... but Red Hat is fine!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by lkundrak View Post

                  Thanks for letting the rest of the anonymous internet users know.

                  What are the particular bugs that bother you in NetworkManager?
                  Hi lkundrak!

                  Well I've personally found that NetworkManager was still acting strange in bridge configurations. For example: Although physical interface was going though a bridge, it was still available in NetworkManager GUI for activation and once this was done there was some non easily reversible issues and possibly even connection lost. So unfortunately I am still disabling NetworkManager service when bridge is present.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    RedHat NIH!!!! They could have put efforts towards the community project BTRFS, but instead they built their own NIH file system which they could control.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
                      RedHat NIH!!!! They could have put efforts towards the community project BTRFS, but instead they built their own NIH file system which they could control.
                      It's not a file system, to be fair. It is using XFS which is used by more than just Red Hat and its derivatives.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X