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

  • #41
    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.
    For the nth time, it's a duct-tape project that is enlisting and coordinating a bunch of existing technology with a single control system, not an actual filesystem or LVM or whatever else by itself.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by shmerl View Post
      What's their main reason to make a new filesystem, instead of improving Btrfs or ZFS?
      "Time to market" most likely

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post


        (since none has posted this, I had to)
        Thanks starshipeleven , that was sorely needed!
        Following in your footsteps I think, since nobody else has - that I have to mention the Wikipedia article on the Dunning-Kruger effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
          Gamers do not use pulseaudio, so much it causes problems.
          Back in pre-historic times when pulse was new this was true yes, people sometimes encountered sound issues with games and idiots told them to disable pulse instead of giving them proper help to make the games work with pulse (this also happened due to older games used OSS or Alsa directly on distributions where pulse was not configured to support those interfaces).

          This has bitten then in the arse though as more and more new games are pulse only which is why you often find some single comment on steam discussions with "please add alsa support since I don't use pulse".

          Comment


          • #45
            I wonder if RH called it that because it's a rampant stratification violation.

            Comment


            • #46
              It is a bit weird to have a daemon for managing what is, presumably, a local filesystem, but I guess it could work out okay. Interested to see how the cache performance compares to bcache, I don't find bcache performance particularly motivating as of yet.

              Comment

              Working...
              X