Systemd 247-RC1 Released With Systemd-OOMD, Systemd-Homed Now Defaults To Btrfs

[Bobby Bob]

Hats off to all the fantastic people who worked on 247 and who have worked on SystemD over the years, it's an amazing software suite, just love it. It's solved so many problems across the Linux ecosystem over the years. Love your work Lennart.

[pal666]

I don't think I need systemd-oomd, my system have 16 GB RAM and my next system will probably have 32 GB RAM.

it's not much, i.e. you are far from "it's impossible to exhaust". but i'm not sure killing workloads while memory is still available is right solution

As for systemd-homed, I don't trust Btrfs, I've heard people say it is unreliable and that they lost lost all their data.

did they lost their data with btrfs from current kernel 5.8? i guess not, i.e. you are basing your conclusions on some irrelevant garbage(not that i'm surprised). btw, i've heard people lost data with ext4

[pal666]

No, I have had no problems with NTFS and ext4.

did you have problems with btrfs?

[pal666]

some crap with /var 8 or 9 years ago corrupted my disk...

btrfs was 3 or 4 years old(younger than bcachefs now) and it had bugs, now they are fixed. but keep backups nevertheless

[skeevy420]

btrfs was 3 or 4 years old(younger than bcachefs now) and it had bugs, now they are fixed. but keep backups nevertheless

Yep. Like I said, I read the man pages, saw the here be dragon warnings, heard the pretty dragon lady tell me to accept things the way they are, and I took my chances anyway.

[uid313]

did you have problems with btrfs?

No, I've never used it. I just read that other people had problems with Btrfs and lost their data. Btrfs seems to have been around for a long time and seems still not be reliable, so maybe it is not so good, and maybe bcachefs is more interesting.

[skeevy420]

No, I've never used it. I just read that other people had problems with Btrfs and lost their data. Btrfs seems to have been around for a long time and seems still not be reliable, so maybe it is not so good, and maybe bcachefs is more interesting.

It's perfectly fine to use, just, seriously, I can't stress this enough, steer clear of the parts of the man pages where it says "experimental features". Aside from compression, best to stick to the defaults (mount options and mkfs).

And, just like ZFS, with BTRFS it really does help to study up on various optimizations and system maintenance because it isn't a fire and forget file system like Ext4 or XFS are. Yeah, you can just go with it, but recent Phoronix benchmarks show why "just go with it" isn't the most optimum idea.

Bcachefs will have the same caveats as it gains more and more features and I'd bet money in Vegas that it'll have the same fun times with GRUB that ZFS and BTRFS tend to have from time to time, with the same crappy benchmark results using the defaults. All of that is true of any advanced feature file system -- I'm not trying to be for or against anything here.

[pal666]

No, I've never used it.

which means it's just as good according to your scientific criteria

I just read that other people had problems with Btrfs and lost their data.

well, i already told you that other people had problems with ext4, i.e. here we again have equality. and of course nobody advocating using that old buggy btrfs version with which people had problems

Btrfs seems to have been around for a long time and seems still not be reliable, so maybe it is not so good, and maybe bcachefs is more interesting.

moron, what is unreliable in current btrfs? and what is reliable in bcachefs which also has been around for a long time and is really not reliable and not available?

[uid313]

which means it's just as good according to your scientific criteria
well, i already told you that other people had problems with ext4, i.e. here we again have equality. and of course nobody advocating using that old buggy btrfs version with which people had problems
moron, what is unreliable in current btrfs? and what is reliable in bcachefs which also has been around for a long time and is really not reliable and not available?

Change any mount option and you can kiss your data good bye if you running Btrfs.
ext4 is rock solid, it is proven, it just works. Btrfs kind of works if you touch nothing, but as soon as you try to change any mount option it does away with all the data.
Just read the posts in this very forum thread here on Phoronix, people are saying "oh it works, just don't touch any mount options", "it works, just don't read the manual and try anything mentioned in there".

[pal666]

Change any mount option and you can kiss your data good bye if you running Btrfs.

who told you that bullshit? raid5 is not recommended, but you can't use raid5 on ext4 at all, so don't use it on btrfs either.

ext4 is rock solid, it is proven, it just works.

try ext4 snapshots. ext4 is obsolete

Btrfs kind of works if you touch nothing, but as soon as you try to change any mount option it does away with all the data.

only for imbeciles. for everyone else just don't use raid5

Just read the posts in this very forum thread here on Phoronix, people are saying "oh it works, just don't touch any mount options", "it works, just don't read the manual and try anything mentioned in there".

you should read posts completely, they add "when feature is marked experimental". so yes, imbecile, don't use experimental features. it applies to any fs