Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

XFS For Linux 4.15 Brings "Great Scads of New Stuff"

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by azdaha View Post
    You can't shrink the filesystem, but you can increase fs size with XFS.
    https://access.redhat.com/solutions/540013
    if it counts as "can change size" then all pigs can fly. just downwards only

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by pal666 View Post
      if it counts as "can change size" then all pigs can fly. just downwards only
      Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comment. Increasing xfs filesystem is changing the fs size.
      After reviewing zfs docs, which show that you can "expand" fs size by increasing the quota while the filesystem is online, your initial comment makes more sense. It might be worth noting the XFS documentation page at http://www.xfs.org/index.php/Shrinking_Support, which shows that XFS is at least more likely to have that option adopted/implemented than ZFS

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by pal666 View Post
        because they know what they are doing, unlike yiu
        So Red Hat, the biggest Linux distributor, does not know what they're doing?

        Even the btrfs proponent SUSE does not have enough confidence in it to enable it by default for /home, even though snapshots would be pretty great for restored accidentally saved documents. (open)SUSE defaults to XFS for /home because they know exactly that XFS is the mature choice these days.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by ssorgatem View Post
          Btrfs' RAID1 is a killer feature for me.
          Is it "killer" feature because btrfs kills your data? lol

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
            Is it "killer" feature because btrfs kills your data? lol
            Nah, that's RAID5/6.

            But seriously, I've running RAID1 with different sized disks and lots of other fancy features enabled, I've had several disks die over the course of 2 years (they were already old and recycled to start with... not trusting them was the reason behind the RAID1 in the first place) and I've faced 0 problems so far.

            Now I run Btrfs on a couple of servers too, and it has saved me many hours of time not having to rebuild RAIDs and being able to use unmatched size disks for it.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by doublez13 View Post

              Yeah XFS is definitely an awesome FS, known for being rock solid and slowly gaining some modern features. In terms of functionality and design however, BTRFS is light-years ahead of it, and was designed to support these features from the start.
              Oh, wait RH would hire some cheap codermonkeys to code some rust and python hipster shit and use marketing BS to tell us its "okay". At least it could at least try to mimic BTRFS features. But, honestly, idea to run XFS on top of separate LVM and raid, using some rust and python crap to at least try not to go nuts while managing all these bizarre things does not sounds exciting to me. I would trust kernel devs far more than bunch of cheap rust or python codermonkeys. Not to mention stupid glue and management sugar code does not fixes outstanding design issues and tradeoffs. BTRFS has addressed many things in the very core of design, and it design is far more capable of than it exposed today, being future-proof. Hard to say the very same of XFS. After all I like how btrfs devs rethought the RAID implementation. And well, ability of BTRFS to store DUPlicated metadata even on single storage has saved me a lot of woes when HDD on laptop gone nuts. Chance bads would hit exactly both 2 copy of metadata are rather low, so bad sectors mostly transformed into quite marginal damage of several unimportant files. And hell, I can't use RAID on laptop since there is no appealing way to attach second storage. Sure, RH is about enterprise stuff and does not really cares about laptops... so XFS is great, blah-doh, but what would happen if one faces bad sector on single HDD and it would be metadata corruption? I guess at this point I would have it real hard trying to get my data back, eh?

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                So Red Hat, the biggest Linux distributor, does not know what they're doing?
                I've got impression most of "big names" behind file systems have left RH. EXT4 ppl gone Google and few other companies, maybe it explains why RH no longer fond of EXT4. I can't readily name famous filesystems devs still working for RH. Their mumbling about trying to turn XFS+LVM+raid+some glue on rust and python to btrfs/zfs/etc like thing does not sounds exciting as well. It rather sounds like if RH is trying to learn pigs to fly, because pig was the only thing they "own" at this point.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                  outside of your fantasy world btrfs devs worked for redhat before facebook
                  I was mentioning present, not past

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                    So Red Hat, the biggest Linux distributor, does not know what they're doing?
                    redhat lost all btrfs devs. redhat knows that it can't support fs without devs. redhat is smart, be like redhat

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by azdaha View Post
                      Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comment. Increasing xfs filesystem is changing the fs size.
                      so is decreasing. it can't decrease size - it does not fulfill requirements for "size is changeable"

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X