Systemd Works On More Btrfs Functionality

[ssokolow]

Or enlightenment...
It runs on all the samsung gear watches. It's specifically tuned for being light weight, advanced, and soon with a working lua engine... You cannot just manage your windows, you can make real efl based applications with a few lines of lua.

Does the E19 WM support a customizable blend of tiling and floating window management out of the box? ...because I'd love to give E19 a try but it's hard enough making time to migrate WMs without having to reinvent what AwesomeWM would give me toward that goal.

[Luke]

MATE lighter than XFCE? Interesting

MATE gives more features, far better experience and uses less memory than XFCE.

That's interesting, as XFCE used to have a reputation for being lighter than GNOME 2. On another note, I found that MATE compiled with Gtk3 running on a netbook with only one GB of RAM (yet in 64 bit for compatability with the desktop OS) used only 50MB more of RAM than IceWM running with the hacked (all WM compatable) version of Nemo and similar tray applets.

[liam]

welp there goes my faith in btrfs (that makes no sense)

If you're going to futz with your mount options, of all things, be sure to read the docs thoroughly.
I'm pretty sure that it was the mount options I chose that once nuked my xfs partition

[jacob]

well then that does not match my experience ... maybe the version I was using was old (fs created a few years ago), but compared to other filesystems, the free space reporting was off by a lot and as I said, lot's of small files ate space like popcorn ...

That could be it. Btrfs DID have internal fragmentation issues (read: wasting space for metadata), but that was resolved years ago. On this very box I have several git clones of the linux kernel source tree and btrfs works like a charm.

[brosis]

Is that supposed to be a statement against Xfce? ...because I'd take Xfce over bloated "desktop environments" like KDE and GNOME any day. It's lighter and snappier than either, and more customizable than GNOME or anything forked from it.
(Heck, going one step further, I just recently got thanked by a friend for introducing him to LXDE's PCManFM file manager)

MATE gives more features, far better experience and uses less memory than XFCE.

[nanonyme]

welp there goes my faith in btrfs (that makes no sense)

It's related to implementation details I don't remember. Ask on IRC if you're curious. Basically just the more people remember "nodatacow" is an eat-my-data flag, the better. It is probably fine if you have eg a database doing its own journaling and maintaining data consistency

[gens]

Please read Btrfs wiki on mount options before using it further. Nodatacow implies nodatasum so no checksums for new files

welp there goes my faith in btrfs (that makes no sense)

[nanonyme]

well then that does not match my experience ... maybe the version I was using was old (fs created a few years ago), but compared to other filesystems, the free space reporting was off by a lot and as I said, lot's of small files ate space like popcorn ...

Well, there's filesystems and filesystems. We had a 500GB Ext4 at work that was migrated from Ext3. We ran out of space and there was no LVM so we creates a new Ext4 disk that was on top of LVM and copied all the files over. End result was files took several dozen gigabytes less space on the new Ext4 than on the old Ext4. I'm expecting most was from original poor use of extents to store small files.

[nanonyme]

2. yes, for benchmarks even the cache should be cleared as it would when restarting the computer (echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches)
btrfs is a complex filesystem with layers and stuff

i'm also on deadline, and nodatacow
i figured it was an alias just curious


@nanonyme
i do edit big files some times, and even if i didn't i don't need COW
checksumming has nothing to do with COW

@reub2000
ye, it's probably in the background now
last time i used btrfs was around... 3.16(?), i remember it was after google/oracle/whoever said it was ready for the enterprajz

so, a rough test would be

cp/make file
sync
sudo echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
date
rm file
sync
date

Please read Btrfs wiki on mount options before using it further. Nodatacow implies nodatasum so no checksums for new files

[haplo602]

That's nonsense. Btrfs uses tail packing so no, it would not require 60g. Besides, there is no reason why btrfs would need to waste more space than any other FS in normal circumstances and, indeed, it does not.

well then that does not match my experience ... maybe the version I was using was old (fs created a few years ago), but compared to other filesystems, the free space reporting was off by a lot and as I said, lot's of small files ate space like popcorn ...