Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Btrfs File-System Changes Submitted For Linux 4.10

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

  • Btrfs File-System Changes Submitted For Linux 4.10

    Phoronix: Btrfs File-System Changes Submitted For Linux 4.10

    Adding to the list of changes so far for Linux 4.10 are the Btrfs file-system updates...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-Btrfs-Updates

  • #2
    No DAX updates is also a bit disappointing. All of my filesystems being BTRFS makes the lack of updates a bit concerning.

    Comment


    • #3
      What's the situation with BTRFS swapfiles? I heard Ubuntu was switching to no-swap partitions, this could effect a lot of potential users of btrfs.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by phoronix
        Btrfs changes in Linux 4.10 aren't as exciting as some would have hoped for, including I.
        Did you mean "including myself"? I'm assuming this is just a typo, or something got cut off.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
          What's the situation with BTRFS swapfiles? I heard Ubuntu was switching to no-swap partitions, this could effect a lot of potential users of btrfs.
          Well I believe this is just the default functionality. Not supporting swap partitions for manual configurations (e.g. using btrfs) is just bonkers.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mystro256 View Post
            Did you mean "including myself"? I'm assuming this is just a typo, or something got cut off.
            If I remember back to English class (many years and many beers ago), Michael is correct. It's like saying, "aren't as exciting as (I) would have hoped for."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
              What's the situation with BTRFS swapfiles?
              they are not needed
              Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
              I heard Ubuntu was switching to no-swap partitions, this could effect a lot of potential users of btrfs.
              ubuntu was changing default on non-lvm setups. presumably non-lvm is non-lvm and non-btrfs

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by DanL View Post

                If I remember back to English class (many years and many beers ago), Michael is correct. It's like saying, "aren't as exciting as (I) would have hoped for."
                English is my native language, and even I find it strange to end a sentence like this with "including I". Writing it as "including myself" would have been more natural, although it's still a bit strange because the last part is out of place. You would normally find someone write or speak it like this:

                The Btrfs changes in Linux 4.10 aren't as exciting as some people, including myself, would have hoped for.
                Although it'd be perfectly acceptable to shorten the sentence to remove the extra fluff and just leave out the "including myself" part.

                Comment


                • #9
                  why none of the bigs sponsoring bcache-fs rather than facebook-fs?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by horizonbrave View Post
                    why none of the bigs sponsoring bcache-fs rather than facebook-fs?
                    probably because they know the complexity of the task.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X