Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs Gets Big Changes, Features In Linux 3.14 Kernel

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by liam View Post
    If you have an ssd use f2fs. That seems to be pretty much the fastest one around. Well, maybe not for db, or heavily queued work.
    But then you'd have to deal with a separate /boot partition and all that crap, right?

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Prescience500 View Post
      Is there or will there be an effort to make ensure that BTRFS is as fast as or faster than EXT4? I know BTRFS is all about features rather than performance, but the average home user doesn't need all of those advanced features. For me, faster makes a less painful time redoing my operating system and transfering all of my files every 6 months.
      For certain operations, a COW filesystem will never be as fast as ext4. It is just not possible.

      Perhaps if you turned off COW, then it may be feasible for btrfs to match, or nearly match, ext4 in almost all types of IO. I'm not saying it does now, but it would at least seem an attainable goal, in the unlikely chance that the btrfs developers made it a high priority.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by WonderWoofy View Post
        As far as I know, no one is actually working on this right now. It doesn't seem as though there is anyone who is interested enough in this at the moment, as there continues to be lots going on in btrfs development.
        Just another symptom of the poor project management for btrfs. That is the sort of project that could be completed relatively quickly and provide some significant benefits.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by johnc View Post
          But then you'd have to deal with a separate /boot partition and all that crap, right?
          Whys that such a big deal? Just fire off a 100mb /boot and leave it be

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
            Just another symptom of the poor project management for btrfs. That is the sort of project that could be completed relatively quickly and provide some significant benefits.
            Significant benefits such as? They already have some compression options, why would lz4 be significantly better?

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by johnc View Post
              But then you'd have to deal with a separate /boot partition and all that crap, right?
              Actually no, you don't need a seperate /boot partition. Or as a matter of fact, you don't need to use partitions at all if you don't want to. You can format raw block devices with btrfs, and It leaves space for grub by design.

              I never use seperate /boot partitions myself. I like to leave /boot inside the /root subvolume, so it's dead simple to roll back without worrying about the /boot being out of sync with the file system.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by zman0900 View Post
                Significant benefits such as? They already have some compression options, why would lz4 be significantly better?
                Agreed. Per subvolume compression and encryption, as well as data dedpulication would be much more useful.

                Of course, as a daily user of btrfs I'd really love a safe, stable fsck tool...

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by crymsonpheonix View Post
                  Agreed. Per subvolume compression and encryption, as well as data dedpulication would be much more useful.

                  Of course, as a daily user of btrfs I'd really love a safe, stable fsck tool...
                  Ideally i'd never be needed, since you should always have new data or old data, never inconsistent data according to Btrfs' design philosophy.

                  Additionally no fsck tool is ever -really- 'safe and stable' since the nature of the beast is that if anything would go wrong it'd probably go VERY wrong. You can only ever have varying degrees of 'safe and stable' which everyone will have a different standard for what is good enough.


                  Personally I have enough faith in Btrfs to run it on a Fedora 20 home server which gets used as my centralized backup for my laptop and phone. Is there an attached eternal drive as a secondary backup? Sure, but thats formatted as NTFS so I'm taking ANOTHER risk by using Ntfs through Linux ANYWAY.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by zman0900 View Post
                    Significant benefits such as? They already have some compression options, why would lz4 be significantly better?
                    LZ4 is faster than LZO, especially at decompression.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
                      LZ4 is faster than LZO, especially at decompression.
                      Marginally. That's not a "significant benefit" compared to a lot of the other things that could be added. I doubt anyone would ever even notice the difference in practice. The biggest "benefit" it would give would be a pretty chart for someone like you to show off.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X