Originally posted by starshipeleven
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
SUSE Remains Committed To The Btrfs File-System
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by sdack View PostTo which I say...
Just where is the logic?! If not having a problem with something is your sole reason for using btrfs then you're having a problem.
Both have:
1. File and directory checksum'ing with automatic healing.
2. Transparent encryption.
3. Transparent compression.
4. Growing and shrinking volumes live.
5. Copy-on-write.
6. Snapshots.
Advantages of btrfs:
1. Subvolumes, including subvolume snapshots.
2. Anecdotally, ZFS is relatively RAM and CPU hungry.
Advantages of ZFS:
1. Mature support for RAID versions other than 0, 1, 10. (Support for other forms of RAID is experimental in btrfs.)
2. Maturity in general.
So I think btrfs has plenty to offer me as a home user. I have it on six drives, and I have subvolumes and snapshots and so forth. I also have backup automation in place: rsync between three computers through anacron and SpiderOak for offsite backups.
(Edit) And to be clear, I think it's a hundred time more likely that btrfs code in the Linux kernel keeps getting tweaked until it's as solid as ZFS than for ZFS ever to get relicensed in a way friendly to Linux.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael_S View Post2. Transparent encryption.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by roelandjansen View Post
did you read Matthias' story? I know him personally and all you wrote is really not in sync with his or SUSE's thought.
ZFS under linux does exist but we all know that licensing is an issue for some products / environments.
The licensing issue is nowhere near as complicated as you make it out to be, to support or use as an enterprise customer. The government themselves use it often, along with national labs and universities. Llnl, eg experts in data and needs, built zfsonlinux specifically because it was much lower hanging fruit and out of the clusterfk oracle and distros created.. If you're not on ext4 or xfs, you're on zfs.Last edited by nevion; 26 August 2017, 02:34 AM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
Because "proper abstraction" isn't always the best answer. Separating everything out into cleanly defined layers makes for better code, but it has a cost - everything is responsible for just its own area of responsibility, and nobody has a big-picture view. If you merge some of the layers - erasing the division between volume management and filesystem - you get more complexity, but you also get the ability to optimise in ways that can't occur when responsibilities are divided.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostThis is a nope for btrfs (no patch for it was ever merged), and for open ZFS (on linux) it's a very new feature that happened by cloning the whole crypto subsystem from Illumos kernel https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...yption-support
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael_S View PostThanks for the correction. Transparent encryption is listed for btrfs on Wikipedia, but I haven't seen you post anything wildly inaccurate before so I'll take you at your word.
btrfs wiki https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index...._encryption.3F
and a mail in the mailing list from a maintainer answering a Google employee asking for that feature some months ago https://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=149727131222766&w=2
And by looking at wikipedia it shows "planned" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs so you probably misread.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rene View Postwell, "layer" in a monolithic kernel only meaning a near zero cost jump or two, ... nothing like expensive context switches or such, ... I rather have a stable storage system without duplicated functionality all over the kernel, ...
So going on their own is actually easier to deal with, and considering btrfs/ZFS do have some unusual requirements, speeds up development.
Really we should not cargo-cult general development guidelines, sometimes it makes sense to go on your own.
Also f2fs has his own RAID-like functionality now, for the same reasons.Last edited by starshipeleven; 26 August 2017, 01:09 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
I experimented with using OpenSUSE'S btrfs root file-system for my home desktop late last year.
Because I wanted to replicate my offline backups and restore procedures, I had to spend a considerable amount of time digging out undocumented conventions concerning how the root is structured, how the sub-volumes are layed out, and how you might go about creating a root manually from scratch. I wrote it up here:
I wanted to share some notes I made while I was seeking to understand the subvolume structure of Leap 42.2 btrfs root filesystem and how I might go about copying it. In the notes below I’ve included sequences of commands that might prove useful in creating a root filesystem from scratch - **before using any of them please make sure you fully understand them, and make sure you check that prerequisite commands have worked before applying subsequent commands, if you fail to check for errors you ma...
If you already familiar with all the info I collected in my notes, I suspect you are in a good position to use btrfs. If you don't, you could be headed for some surprises.
In the end I found the added complexity too high a price to pay for any of the features on offer. I decided to wait a year or two and see if the btrfs documentation and tooling matures.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cjcox View Post
You need to hang around here for awhile. There are few sacred cows that you aren't allowed to touch.
1) It makes me not want to listen to what you have to say.
2) It causes any of (those people) to start taking the bait, even if you meant it in jest.
3) It tells everyone reading exactly how you feel about an entire group of people, or at least, makes it seem like you feel a certain way. Doing so, you essentially said that one group of people will be the irrational ones.
Comment
Comment