Btrfs To Ship Multiple Performance Improvements In The Next Linux Kernel

[pal666]

Is btrfs stable for daily use? I see people regularly mention that ZFS should be used for critical data and btrfs is still a toy...

those people are idiots. btrfs is stable, zfs on linux is outoftree not supported piece of shit

[pal666]

Im talking without user intervention

write script which does chattr +C ? how btrfs should know which files are "bad for cow" and "not needed to snapshot" at the same time?

[pal666]

Are there any News about the Raid5/6 State? It is stable and bullet proof now? And any news on checksums for parity against bitrot?

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status#RAID56

[pal666]

Not sure what you mean by "checksums for parity against bitrot"? Btrfs has had checksumming for reliable data and metadata for years now.

parity was not checksummed in the past

[horizonbrave]

hey stratis (I know you're a different kind of beast), bcacheFS and btrfs why don't you become friends and try to be the very long awaited and verymuchdesired fully featured zfs alternative on Linux?
hey zfs why don't you ask your daddy/oracle to change your licensing everyknow on then?

[ssokolow]

For desktop at least.

*nod* When my mother had to choose between Dropbox and ecryptfs on her laptop, she chose ecryptfs.

[aht0]

hey zfs why don't you ask your daddy/oracle to change your licensing everyknow on then?

Hey Linux, why not change over to CDDL instead? It would solve the problem. Oh wait, you are stuck on GPLv2 forever..

[jacob]

Is btrfs stable for daily use? I see people regularly mention that ZFS should be used for critical data and btrfs is still a toy...

ZFS is more mature than btrfs ON SOLARIS. It is *mostly* ok on FreeBSD (with various caveats) and I wouldn't recommend it on Linux. In terms of design, both ZFS and Btrfs have their issues (in the sense that in looking back, there are things that should have been done differently). In theory the ZFS is the worse of the two, being block-based rather than extent-based, but it's also simpler and easier to debug.

[jacob]

Hey Linux, why not change over to CDDL instead? It would solve the problem. Oh wait, you are stuck on GPLv2 forever..

Thanks God for that. Being forever stuck on GPLv2 is precisely what makes this licence so good, and I contend that it's also what made Linux so successful compared to other open source OSes that use non-sticky licences.

BTW just the idea of switching to a crappy licence in order to be able to merge in this piece of hodgepodgey bloatware gives me shills.

[aht0]

Thanks God for that.(1) Being forever stuck on GPLv2 is precisely what makes this licence so good, and I contend that (2) it's also what made Linux so successful compared to other open source OSes that use non-sticky licences.
BTW just the idea of switching to a crappy licence in order to be able to merge in this piece of hodgepodgey bloatware gives me shills.

(1)By the same token, it cannot migrate to, lets say, GPLv3
(2)Bunch of random incidents aided Linux equally or more than it's license. Linux took off in popularity when FreeBSD was implementing SMP and did at first shitty job. Then FreeBSD's users (it was used far more than Linux back then) migrated to Linux because it happened to be ready and accessible alternative (no OpenSolaris yet). Later times, additional factors aiding Linux were Oracle closing OpenSolaris after buying Sun and Google opting to use Linux kernel for it's new embedded OS Android. Without all of it, FreeBSD or OpenSolaris could easily be in the same position Linux has nowadays. Just mostly luck IMHO.

Where GPL in fact aided and served it's purpose was with Linksys court case - suddenly people could have access to sources for their routers - would not have been possible with BSD license.

Also, define success - Linux has a few percents market on desktop and still less far smaller market share in servers than Windows, except for web servers where it indeed rules the roost.