Fernando Cassia <fcassia@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > What is the age of BTRFS?
>
> BTRFS presentation, mid-2007
> https://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/dist/documentation/btrfs-ukuug.pdf
>
> That makes it 6 years in development. Next...

So BTRFS is 6 years younger than ZFs.

Comparing todays's bugreports for BTRFS with ZFS bugreports from 2006 let me
asume that you should not consider to use BTRFS during the next 2-3 years in
real production.



Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Fernando Cassia <fcassia@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "Possibly some. Samba has been asking for streams support for a while,
> and if reiser4 leads the way in an implementation that does not break
> unix file semantics, jfs (and possibly other file systems) may follow."

Microsoft tried to advertize their "stream" concept to POSIX in summer 2001.

They failed because they used a userinterface that is in conflict with POSIX
rules (e.g. by forbidding ':' to be a normal character in filenames or by
trying to introduce a ew special directory "...").

In August 2001, Sun came up with the extended attribute file concept that is a
superset of the Microsoft stream concept and in addition compatile to POSIX.

In August 2001, the implementation was only usable on UFS outside from Sun, but
it was implemented in ZFS from the beginning.

Given the fact that the extended attribute file concept is part of the NFSv4
standard, Linux should implement it in case it offers a full blown NFSv4. I am
not sure whether this applies to Linux, as my last information say that support
for NFSv4 ACLs is also missing on Linux. Note that NFSv4 ACLs are bitwise
identical to NTFS ACLs and to ZFS ACLs.

But if you like to offer SMB exports, you should better use Solaris as Solaris
comes with an in-kernel SMB server that supports all features from SMB. This
includes support for atomar ACL create support that can only be supported with
an enhanced VFS interface.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:

> integrated so growing a file system is a one step process that takes
> care of both the LVM and JFS online in a single command.
>
> # chfs -size=+10G /home
>
> hard to be much simpler than that!
>
>

ZFS is simpler than that ;-)

If you enabled the zpool autoexpand feature, you just need to start replacing
disks by bigger ones. Once you are ready with replacing all disks from a RAID
system, the filesytem shows the new size.

BTW: where do you expect the additional 10G to come from in your example?



Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 08/04/2012 10:05 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2012-08-04, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org> wrote:
>> As Nux! initially said, ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as
>> their main file system. I would (and do) use that. The 6.3 kernel does
>> support xfs and CentOS has the jfs tools in our extras directory, but I
>> like tried and true over experimental.
> Isn't XFS on linux tried and true by now? It's always worked great for
> me.

I suppose that depends on your definition. It has only JUST become
supported on RHEL ...

>
> Does ext4 resolve the issue of slow fsck? Recently I had a ~500GB ext3
> filesystem that hadn't been checked in a while; it took over 20 minutes
> to fsck. Meanwhile, a few months ago I had a problematic ~10TB XFS
> filesystem, and it took about 1-2 hours to fsck (IIRC 1.5 hrs). This
> was also a reason I switched away from reiserfs (this was well before
> Hans Reiser's personal problems)--a reiserfsck of a relatively modest
> filesystem took much longer than even an ext3 fsck.
>
> If I get some time I will try it on some spare filesystems, but I'm
> curious what other people's experiences are.
>
> I've looked into ZFS on linux, but it still seems not quite ready for
> real production use. I'd love to test it on a less crucial server when
> I get the chance. Their FAQ claims RHEL 6.0 support:
>
> http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html

My experience is that I normally do not have any issues with ext3 on EL5
or ext4 on EL6 ... problems being that I can not use the system because
the IO is too slow, for example.

Other people might want to pick and prod and get the top 5 or 6%
performance they can out of a machine ... I would rather use what is
supported unless there is a reason that I can not do it in production.

That is why it's your machine ... you get to do whatever you want ...
and keep all the pieces

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 12:32 AM, John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
> JFS is the primary file system for AIX on their big Power servers, and
> on those, it performs very very well. the utilities are are fully
> integrated so growing a file system is a one step process that takes
> care of both the LVM and JFS online in a single command.

Yes, however my data loss experience was with IBM´s OS/2 port of JFS.
Probably related to one of these
http://www.os2voice.org/warpcast/1999-08/37CC5F9D.htm

Needless to say I learned the hard way that filesystems can be buggy.
FC
FC
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 08/05/12 3:40 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> ZFS is simpler than that ;-)

well aware, I run ZFS on Solaris.


> BTW: where do you expect the additional 10G to come from in your example?

from the LVM pool containing /home ... Linux LVM also came from IBM, and was based on the LVM of AIX



--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

2012/8/5 Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org>:
> On 08/04/2012 10:05 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>> On 2012-08-04, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org> wrote:
>>> As Nux! initially said, ext4 is the OS that RHEL and Fedora support as
>>> their main file system. I would (and do) use that. The 6.3 kernel does
>>> support xfs and CentOS has the jfs tools in our extras directory, but I
>>> like tried and true over experimental.
>> Isn't XFS on linux tried and true by now? It's always worked great for
>> me.
>
> I suppose that depends on your definition. It has only JUST become
> supported on RHEL ...

Just? http://www.redhat.com/products/enterprise-linux-add-ons/file-systems/

At least it is supported on RHEL 5 also with extra price tag..



--
Eero
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 08/05/12 3:06 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Your claim is aproximately correct for NFSv2 (1988) but wrong for other NFS
> versions.

The server was using NFS V3/V4 in CentOS 6.2 earlier this year, and
various clients, including Solaris 10. The problems were reported from
our overseas manufacturing operations so I only got them 3rd hand, and
don't know all the specifics. In my lab I had only shared the root of
the file system as thats the model I use, but apparently operations
likes to have lots of different shares, MS Windows style. This was a
'stop production' kind of error, so the most expedient fix was to
manually specify the export ID.



--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 08/05/2012 07:14 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> from the LVM pool containing /home ... Linux LVM also came from IBM, and was based on the LVM of AIX


AIX had a LogicalVolume Manager, sure - but I dont think thats where the
linux LVM came from - the Sistina guys had a fairly independent
implementation. And the Linux LVM looks a lot more like the HP variant
than the IBM one.

- KB
--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

On 08/05/2012 06:46 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> Yes, however my data loss experience was with IBM´s OS/2 port of JFS.
> Probably related to one of these
> http://www.os2voice.org/warpcast/1999-08/37CC5F9D.htm

I think its safe to assume that OS/2 experience from 1998 is pretty much
irrelevant to the conversation here, and JFS on linux. Just looking at
the kernel tree its easy to spot plenty of changes in that part of the
codebase.

There is jfs support available for CentOS - feel free to install it and
quantify issues around it.


--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos