FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-05-2011, 05:45 PM
JB
 
Default Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?

Hi,

Ext3, ext4, xfs and btrfs filesystems comparison on Linux kernel 3.0.0

http://www.ilsistemista.net/index.php/linux-a-unix/21-ext3-ext4-xfs-and-btrfs-filesystems-comparison-on-linux-kernel-300.html

Various tests show ext3 and ext4 are the leaders, with btrfs in last place
(also using way more CPU than the others).
Obviously something is going wrong ...
Are we in a "progress"-in-reverse mode in fs land ?

Could we ask btrfs devs to present their own test results ?

After SELinux straitjacket, GNOME 3 stroke of genius, and Systemd's search for
God particle, everybody else in the Twilight Zone is following downhill ...

Perhaps you could make your statement in the upcoming Fedora Project Board and
FESCo elections ?

JB


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 11-05-2011, 10:56 PM
Michael Cronenworth
 
Default Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?

On 11/05/2011 01:45 PM, JB wrote:
> Are we in a "progress"-in-reverse mode in fs land ?
>
> Could we ask btrfs devs to present their own test results ?

You're very much welcome to post on the btrfs list and ask yourself.

> Perhaps you could make your statement in the upcoming Fedora Project Board and
> FESCo elections ?

Who is "you"?

As far as your subject line question btrfs still has no fsck tool. It is
not ready for production yet.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 11-06-2011, 06:17 AM
Fernando Cassia
 
Default Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 15:45, JB <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> wrote:

Various tests show ext3 and ext4 are the leaders, with btrfs in last place

(also using way more CPU than the others).
There are other considerations besides raw speed. H*ck, in OS/2 HPFS386 (written in assembler) was in most scenarios way faster than IBM JFS, but it also lacked journaling. ;-)

FC


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 11-06-2011, 06:18 AM
Fernando Cassia
 
Default Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?

On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 15:45, JB <jb.1234abcd@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps you could make your statement in the upcoming Fedora Project Board and

FESCo elections
Nobody forces you to use BTRFS, or IBM JFS or XFS for that matter. But IŽd like to have the option of using BTRFS available.
Instead of creating a campaign against something you donŽt like, why not start a campaign FOR something you *do* like?

FC
--
"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers."
Richard Hamming - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code




--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 11-06-2011, 07:12 AM
JB
 
Default Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?

Fernando Cassia <fcassia <at> gmail.com> writes:

>
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 15:45, JB <jb.1234abcd <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you could make your statement in the upcoming Fedora Project Board and
> FESCo elections
>
>
> Nobody forces you to use BTRFS, or IBM JFS or XFS for that matter. But IŽd
> like to have the option of using BTRFS available.
> Instead of creating a campaign against something you donŽt like, why not start
> a campaign FOR something you *do* like?

I would like to have btrfs available (in particular for its planned features),
but not as a *default* fs yet (because of the negative test results, which are
already multiple and consistent).

> ...

Let me explain why I think Fedora mishandles the *default* grant repeatedly.

"We" (to also answer Michael's post above), that is, Fedora Project members who
are also formally entitled to vote, and non-associated users/testers on
the lists, should ask candidates to Fedora leadership positions (currently in
election time) about their opinion and attitude towards planned introduction or
elevation of Fedora features to a status of default.

In order to avoid problems with btrfs as default fs, let's learn from the past
mistakes.

This would avoid disruptive calamities like e.g. GNOME 3 project and its devs,
who are known to know it better than the users what they (the users) need.
Then Fedora, as if nothing happened, affords them the status of a default DE
as if nothing changed between Gnome 2 and 3 DE's quality.

To make the process even more senseless, after all the above (that is, post
factum), Gnome 3 project makes a survey of users.
Just the opposite of what should have happened, that is, you ask users about
their opinions/wishes *before* starting a new/replacement project (by their own
opinion), a project that impacts the Linux DE users landscape worldwide.

Hey, I thought they had a clue about development life cycle of a project ...,
in particular in light of RH devs participation and their influence on
the project's goals.

Here are the results:

What People Are Saying About GNOME [Part 1]
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gnome_survey_part1&num= 1
What People Are Saying About GNOME [Part 2]
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gnome_survey_part2&num= 1

Enjoy it.

Now what ?

Question directed to GNOME 3 devs, and here more so to Fedora Project's current
and new electable leaders.

The normal course of action (in the world of meritocracy, that's yours, you
claim) is that you start with your project in the back of the bus and move on
to the front of it when you are ready, but not sooner.
That also with regard to becoming a poster child of a distro, that is, being
elevated to a default feature like DE, or fs, or system init.

If people do not question what is being served here (also on behalf of RH or
presumed meritocracy), they will become just the recipients of all the goodies
mentioned here and in my original post above.

I have not seen it yet that a candidate in the elections dropped a post on this
users list, introduced him/her-self, said what drove him/her, what/why/how
things need to be done, and asked for support and feedback from the users and
testers base.

JB


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 11-06-2011, 09:30 AM
Alan Cox
 
Default Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?

I think btrfs as default would be somewhere between very brave and
negligent at this point until it has a good well tested fsck tool and some
of the underlying other performance problems are sorted out nicely.

If your desktop is a bit iffy it crashes maybe it annoys people, it's
hard to use it's a bit of a niggle, and you can switch. If your fs
crashes or you get a bad block, or you lose power at the wrong moment you
have a problem if your fsck isn't rock solid (or plain doesn't exist). If
your fs goes wrong you are in 'reinstall' territory, which is a whole
different level of severity to 'my desktop sucks'.

Worse than that fs bugs in development fs code can slowly and subtly
corrupt your data without showing errors, so even your backups are
corrupt in places. Trialing a new fs on end users without enormous
testing and care is not smart. It needs huge planning, verification work,
consistency checkers, fsck tools that *work* and are tested heavily.

Plus in a funny way btrfs is now in part un-needed, With the move to SSD
devices (which looks like it will speed up rapidly due to the
catastrophic flooding) the seek and I/O rate problems mostly go away
for existing fs types.

Alan
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 11-06-2011, 10:57 AM
JB
 
Default Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?

Alan Cox <alan <at> lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

> ...
> Plus in a funny way btrfs is now in part un-needed, With the move to SSD
> devices (which looks like it will speed up rapidly due to the
> catastrophic flooding) the seek and I/O rate problems mostly go away
> for existing fs types.
> ...

But what about those atractive features (some ZFS-like) the users would like to
have, e.g.:
- checksumming
- roll back
- snapshots
- pools

Is it possible to implement them on ext4 ?
Perhaps writing off ext4 in favor of btrfs in context of new features
development is premature ?

JB





--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 11-06-2011, 11:04 AM
Alan Cox
 
Default Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?

> But what about those atractive features (some ZFS-like) the users would like to
> have, e.g.:
> - checksumming
> - roll back
> - snapshots
> - pools
>
> Is it possible to implement them on ext4 ?

Possibly but the entire point of ext4 was to grow ext3 and do so in a
maximally safe fashion. Some of the above you can do via LVM of course.

> Perhaps writing off ext4 in favor of btrfs in context of new features
> development is premature ?

Doing btrfs development makes sense, but inflicting it by default on users
who really have no need for it isn't quite the same discussion. For
performance it's not showing any signs of being better than ext3/4 - in
fact on some media its massively underperforming them currently. The
funky feature set really isn't relevant to most users while their data
still being available most definitely *is*.

Alan
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 11-06-2011, 11:53 AM
JB
 
Default Is btrfs ready to be default fs in F17 ?

Alan Cox <alan <at> lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes:

>
> > But what about those atractive features (some ZFS-like) the users would
> > like to
> > have, e.g.:
> > - checksumming
> > - roll back
> > - snapshots
> > - pools
> >
> > Is it possible to implement them on ext4 ?
>
> Possibly but the entire point of ext4 was to grow ext3 and do so in a
> maximally safe fashion. Some of the above you can do via LVM of course.
>
> > Perhaps writing off ext4 in favor of btrfs in context of new features
> > development is premature ?
>
> Doing btrfs development makes sense, but inflicting it by default on users
> who really have no need for it isn't quite the same discussion. For
> performance it's not showing any signs of being better than ext3/4 - in
> fact on some media its massively underperforming them currently. The
> funky feature set really isn't relevant to most users while their data
> still being available most definitely *is*.
>
> Alan

Having btrfs developed by Oracle, with RH participation, in light of measures
and counter-measures with regard to RHEL and its "unlawful support" by Oracle,
is not a good recipe for common goals in btrfs dev.

Me thinks evolution, forking ext5 from ext4, and moving with it by original
ext4 devs irrespectively of some Linux player's interests, by progressively
adding the most attractive features mentioned above, seems like the most
optimal path. The current performance of ext4 vice btrfs justifies such a move.

Everybody would eventually benefit, but nobody with conflicting interests would
control the process.

JB


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:41 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org