Hi,

I'd like to ask if anybody here has already some experience
with Btrfs? Is it usable (although not officialy stable)?

I'd like to swich ext3 for something more modern, and none
of JFS/ZFS/Reiser/ext4 has all the features I'm looking for.
Btrfs looks interesting, but I'm not sure if it is suitable
for anything more than experimenting (while being ready
to loose the whole filesystem)...

Jarry
--
__________________________________________________ _____________
This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists!
Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 15:48, Jarry <mr.jarry@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to ask if anybody here has already some experience
> with Btrfs? Is it usable (although not officialy stable)?
>
> I'd like to swich ext3 for something more modern, and none
> of JFS/ZFS/Reiser/ext4 has all the features I'm looking for.
> Btrfs looks interesting, but I'm not sure if it is suitable
> for anything more than experimenting (while being ready
> to loose the whole filesystem)...

I use it as my main fs here and have had no issues. Having said that,
there is NO functional fsck at this time. And abrupt power issues tend
to /hose/ the fs. So, if you have good backups and can restore the
occasional fs, it's fine

On 21-Sep-11 21:55, Doug Hunley wrote:


I'd like to ask if anybody here has already some experience
with Btrfs? Is it usable (although not officialy stable)?


I use it as my main fs here and have had no issues. Having said that,
there is NO functional fsck at this time. And abrupt power issues tend
to /hose/ the fs. So, if you have good backups and can restore the
occasional fs, it's fine


Really no fsck? I've heard fedora was going to use btrfs
as main filesystem in upcomming release 16 (to be released
in about a month). How could they do it without fsck?

Jarry
--
__________________________________________________ _____________
This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists!
Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:12:35 +0200, Jarry wrote:

> Really no fsck? I've heard fedora was going to use btrfs
> as main filesystem in upcomming release 16 (to be released
> in about a month). How could they do it without fsck?

They can't, that's why they've postponed it until until 17. Btrfs will be
in 16, but not as the default filesystem.


--
Neil Bothwick

Top Oxymorons Number 31: Small crowd

Jarry writes:

> On 21-Sep-11 21:55, Doug Hunley wrote:
>
>>> I'd like to ask if anybody here has already some experience
>>> with Btrfs? Is it usable (although not officialy stable)?
>>
>> I use it as my main fs here and have had no issues. Having said that,
>> there is NO functional fsck at this time. And abrupt power issues tend
>> to /hose/ the fs. So, if you have good backups and can restore the
>> occasional fs, it's fine
>
> Really no fsck? I've heard fedora was going to use btrfs
> as main filesystem in upcomming release 16 (to be released
> in about a month). How could they do it without fsck?

I think they won't, the German Wikipedia page says they will make it
default in Fedora 17.

Some weeks ago, it was stated that the fsk will be ready in some weeks:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg11836.html

Btrfs is very interesting, but no matter how good it is, I will
definitely wait until a fsck utility is ready and tested before starting
to use it.

Wonko

Tried it one FS to test - looked good
tried it on a few file systems - seemed to take punishment that killed
the ext2/3 FS every time

Then every one died within a month with unrecoverable errors of one type
or another (power crash caused corruption that couldnt be fixed, unknown
problems, long standing bugs, certain files that couldnt be stored on
the system, emerge failures when /var was on btrfs (libreoffice was the
worst), ...)

At this point in time I have the same opinion of it as I have for
ext2/3/4 - crap ...

Maybe in the fullness of time

BillK


On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 21:31 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:12:35 +0200, Jarry wrote:
>
> > Really no fsck? I've heard fedora was going to use btrfs
> > as main filesystem in upcomming release 16 (to be released
> > in about a month). How could they do it without fsck?
>
> They can't, that's why they've postponed it until until 17. Btrfs will be
> in 16, but not as the default filesystem.
>
>

Ok for me so far, but still seems slower than ext4, and i'm using
compression, inode_cache and space_cache.

However, I wouldn't use it on a system i didn't have a backup for.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Adam Carter <adamcarter3@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok for me so far, but still seems slower than ext4, and i'm using
> compression, inode_cache and space_cache.

Does ext4 have compression? I didn't know it did. If it doesn't, then,
yeah, you're adding some serious overhead and real latency.


--
:wq

>> Ok for me so far, but still seems slower than ext4, and i'm using
>> compression, inode_cache and space_cache.
>
> Does ext4 have compression? I didn't know it did. If it doesn't, then,
> yeah, you're adding some serious overhead and real latency.

Sorry I wasn't clear. Compression, inode_cache and space_cache are
btrfs mount options. LZO compression on btrfs increases performance in
most benchmarks i've seen. ZLIB is 50/50, some better some worse, but
of course you get a better compression rate.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Adam Carter <adamcarter3@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ok for me so far, but still seems slower than ext4, and i'm using
>>> compression, inode_cache and space_cache.
>>
>> Does ext4 have compression? I didn't know it did. If it doesn't, then,
>> yeah, you're adding some serious overhead and real latency.
>
> Sorry I wasn't clear. Compression, inode_cache and space_cache are
> btrfs mount options. LZO compression on btrfs increases performance in
> most benchmarks i've seen. ZLIB is 50/50, some better some worse, but
> of course you get a better compression rate.

Hm. Well, that'll be dependent on the type of data, reads vs writes,
seeking, etc. Try turning off compression and see if that helps.


--
:wq