Originally posted by duby229
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Red Hat Appears To Be Abandoning Their Btrfs Hopes
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Michael_S View PostOracle is a purely self-serving, money-grubbing company. But they gain no financial, legal, public relations, or other benefit by making btrfs awful.
And the fact that btrfs isn't Oracle's own stuff prevents them from running into the ground, which is a plus.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Maybe the problem is, that till today, Btrfs is still not completely stable (RAID 5/6) and it is not a general file system! It is not suited for databases or VMs, because the performance sucks on this scenario, because of COW. But if Red Hat really develops an own next generation file system, wouldn't it have similar problems?
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by torsionbar28 View PostNonsense, when you have a paid support contract from a vendor, Red Hat for example, they are on the hook for the quality of the product - that's what you are paying them for. That's what "support" means. It means that when it breaks, they are obligated to help you fix it.
It seems RedHat does not see profit in offering support for Btrfs, but that guy's claims that the drivers could offer some warranties by themselves is nonsense.
I mean, SUSE is supporting Btrfs fine, the world is not ended yet.
Why are you trying to use this worldwide de facto standard of limited liability, and applying it to open source software as if that's a unique use case?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostHere, read NVIDIA's blob license:
And here a HP driver license (printer drivers, I don't know if they are for Linux or not) https://support.hp.com/us-en/document/c00581401
Huh? It's not like they don't have full control of what goes into their kernels didn't they?
Yeah, also Facebook, and that evil monster Fujitsu. Man I'm sure I've also seen Chtulhu posting patches in the mailing list.
Knowing RedHat, it's probably because their average customer uses databases that have checksums already, or expendable webservers where it's irrelevant anyway.Last edited by schmidtbag; 01 August 2017, 03:36 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by macemoneta View PostI've been using BTRFS for going on 6 years now, as single devices (for corruption detection) and as RAID1 for availability on multiple systems and drives. It has saved me from a failed drive controller that was corrupting data it wrote to the platters, and it has never failed me. Given the option, I wouldn't go back to EXT4/LVM2/mdraid. If it gets pulled from Fedora, I'll switch to another distribution before switching to another filesystem.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostFYI: all Linux drivers are "use at your own risk", so is most opensource stuff.
It's not like you can go and sue ext4 devs if your filesystem fucks up and eats your data, or AMD/NVIDIA if your GPU drivers crash and you lose a competitive Overwatch match for world championships or something.
- Likes 6
Comment
-
Originally posted by schmidtbag View PostThat doesn't explicitly say all their drivers are betas or to use them at your own risk.
I'm not discussing the fact that their drivers may be good or not. Just that all drivers usually are provided "at your own risk", and no driver ever exits from that stage. You can have drivers or features that are assumed stable and reliable, but not official legal binding statements that they are.
doesn't say anything about the stability or reliability of the product.
Your attempt to undermine the significant of my comment accomplished nothing.
That only addresses one of many beneficial features Btrfs has. As far as I'm aware, there is no complete Linux-native replacement to it.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by carewolf View PostThe difference is that when data goes bad on ext4 filesystems, you lose a file or a bit of a file, when something goes wrong with btrfs you lose the entire partition.
https://superuser.com/questions/5757...perblock-found
EDIT: for the sake of fairness, also XFS can refuse mounting
I have a bit of a problem. I am running Ubuntu 10.04 LTS on my laptop, and about 2 years ago I replaced the aging HDD with a 32 GB SSD. Today I tried to boot my computer, but it couldn't. So I've ...
I have an amazon ec2 instance running Ubuntu 12.04. It has an attached EBS volume formatted as XFS. It's worked fine for a long time. However, after a reboot today, the volume is no longer being
Last edited by starshipeleven; 01 August 2017, 04:08 PM.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by carewolf View PostI have used it twice, and both times it irrovokably bitrotted the disk, and with no proper fsck, and a filesystem that refuses to read faulty metadata it created itself, it just eats and destroys data. Really tragic they still havent made a proper fsck.
- Likes 4
Comment
Comment