I've noticed scary reports regarding fragmentation on btrfs, some fairly recent
(within last 6 months). I'm interested in considering btrfs for my next f15
install, but should I be concerned about this issue? Is it expected to be
resolved?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 2011-02-26 at 17:33-05 Lyos Gemini Norezel
wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 06:38 PM, James Ralston wrote:
>
> > Separate LVM logical volumes can help mitigate consumption-based
> > DoS attacks.
> >
> > For example: if /tmp and /var/tmp are separate LVM logical
> > volumes, then a runaway/malicious p
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:51:50PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
>> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
>
> Sorry I'm a bit late on this gentl
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:51:50PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
Sorry I'm a bit late on this gentle discussion, but I have one
question about this:
I use LVM to st
On 02/26/2011 05:33 PM, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
> This subvolume nonsense has no real place on any home computer/consumer
> device.
...
> Having more than 3 partitions on ANY system other than production
> servers seems foolish at best.
>
> To have it as default on a modern operating system is
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 17:33 -0500, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
>> On 02/23/2011 04:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> >
>> > And I'd like to counter-counter-propose that we just stop using ANY kind of
>> > subvolumes or volume management by default a
On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 17:33 -0500, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 04:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> > And I'd like to counter-counter-propose that we just stop using ANY kind of
> > subvolumes or volume management by default and just default to plain old
> > partitions. IMHO, LVM caus
Dne 27.2.2011 06:51, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
> I'm not sure why your mail is so strident, because we don't default to
> that. The default Fedora layout is either /boot , swap , / or /boot ,
> swap , / , and /home . Okay, that last one is four, but only if you
> count swap.
He confuses mountpoin
On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 17:33 -0500, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
> Having more than 3 partitions on ANY system other than production
> servers seems foolish at best.
>
> To have it as default on a modern operating system is nothing short of
> insanity.
I'm not sure why your mail is so strident, b
On 02/23/2011 04:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> And I'd like to counter-counter-propose that we just stop using ANY kind of
> subvolumes or volume management by default and just default to plain old
> partitions. IMHO, LVM causes more problems than it fixes. Sure, you can
> easily add storage from
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 02:25:26PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > snapshotted every time we perform a package/admin operation (and
> > perhaps also just on regular intervals for good measure), what would
> > we then gain by adding a read-only rootfs to the mix?
> Security, robustness: you can
On 2/25/11 2:54 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 24.2.2011 20:54, Ric Wheeler napsal(a):
>> Can we have pointers to these crashes or BZ reports please? As Josef has
>> noted, btrfs has been quite stable in our testing and we are certainly
>> going to pursue any reports.
>
> Will do ... I am hesitant to
On 02/25/2011 08:52 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 02/25/2011 04:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheelerwrote:
On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 02/25/2011 04:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
>
> btrfs does the form
On 02/25/2011 04:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>>> Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latter.
>>> BTRFS so far only makes m
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>> Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
>>> btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latter.
>> BTRFS so far only makes my kernel panicking as it did anytime I have
>> been
Dne 24.2.2011 20:54, Ric Wheeler napsal(a):
> Can we have pointers to these crashes or BZ reports please? As Josef has
> noted, btrfs has been quite stable in our testing and we are certainly
> going to pursue any reports.
Will do ... I am hesitant to do so, because so many of my previous bug
repo
On 2011-02-24 at 16:02-05 Josef Bacik wrote:
> I think that if I could get a large base to test for F15 that we
> could squash most/all of the problems that crop up from that to be
> in great shape for default in F16.
I think you'd increase your chances of getting lots of testers for
F15+btrfs if
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
>> btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latter.
>
> BTRFS so far only makes my kernel panicking as it did anytime I have
> been trying it since Fedora 9 (yes, I am crazy). Thi
On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
>> btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latter.
> BTRFS so far only makes my kernel panicking as it did anytime I have
> been trying it since Fedora 9 (yes, I am crazy). This is absolut
On 2011-02-23 at 23:32-06 Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 05:38 PM, James Ralston wrote:
>
> > None of these issues is a dealbreaker, but they *are* losses of
> > functionality versus what LVM offers.
>
> LVM isn't going anywhere. It just won't be the default during a
> fresh install
On 02/23/2011 06:01 PM, James Ralston wrote:
> On 2011-02-23 at 13:41-05 Peter Jones wrote:
>> dm-crypt still just throws REQ_FLUSH away instead of figuring out
>> the block remaps involved and issuing the right bios. Of course,
>> this is a problem with dm-crypt and _any_ filesystem.
>
> Are yo
Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latter.
BTRFS so far only makes my kernel panicking as it did anytime I have
been trying it since Fedora 9 (yes, I am crazy). This is absolutely not
meant as anything personal against Josef
On Wed, 23.02.11 21:29, Chris Ball (c...@laptop.org) wrote:
>
> Hi Lennart,
>
>> My hope is that one day we can ship a read-only root dir by
>> default, or more specifically a btrfs file system with three
>> subvolumes in it: one read-only one mounted to /, and two
>> writable on
On 02/23/2011 05:38 PM, James Ralston wrote:
> None of these issues is a dealbreaker, but they*are* losses of
> functionality versus what LVM offers.
LVM isn't going anywhere. It just won't be the default during a fresh
installation, which you would still be free to override by using an LVM
aga
On 02/23/2011 01:33 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> Well I don't think cleaning up the existing patches will be that big
> of a deal, it's mostly a matter of testing. The problem with GRUB2 is
> it's GPLv3, explicitly to be a giant pain in the ass for porting any
> new fs to GRUB since we're all GPLv2
Hi Lennart,
> My hope is that one day we can ship a read-only root dir by
> default, or more specifically a btrfs file system with three
> subvolumes in it: one read-only one mounted to /, and two
> writable ones mounted to /home and /var, with /tmp mounted from
> tmpfs.
I can see
On 2011-02-22 at 14:51-05 Josef Bacik wrote:
> Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
I don't think btrfs subvolumes are capable of replacing LVM
functionality quite yet.
Here are two usage cases that I
On 02/23/2011 07:41 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 12:50 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
>> If you want to stack it on top of dm-crypt there are caveats as well.
>
> Right, which is what we'd wind up doing in the encrypted case.
>
>>> From btrfs-wiki:
>>> btrfs volumes on top of dm-crypt block de
On 2011-02-23 at 13:41-05 Peter Jones wrote:
> dm-crypt still just throws REQ_FLUSH away instead of figuring out
> the block remaps involved and issuing the right bios. Of course,
> this is a problem with dm-crypt and _any_ filesystem.
Are you sure that's still the case?
Because this patchset a
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
>> In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can
>> do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I
>> don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am
>> concer
Jon Masters wrote:
> In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can
> do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I
> don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am
> concerned that this will lead to less testing and exposure to full
Once upon a time, Ralf Ertzinger said:
> If you never tried the kind of freedom BTRFS and ZFS give you for
> shifting around disk space, try it. Seriously. Then you'll see where
> the "awful" comes from. In perspective it really is.
You cut out the parts of my email where I said I don't have any
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:08:08PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > > You can't move PVs.
> >
> > What do you think pvmove does?
>
> Move PEs from one PV to another. You can't move a PV.
Not exactly; pvmove move
On 02/23/2011 03:33 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:08:08PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
>>> You can't move PVs.
>>
>> What do you think pvmove does?
>
> Move PEs from one PV to another. You can't move a PV.
>
>>> You need a separate
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:08:08PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > You can't move PVs.
>
> What do you think pvmove does?
Move PEs from one PV to another. You can't move a PV.
> > You need a separate /boot.
>
> That's needed for more than just LVM (and p
Hi.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:38:05 -0600, Chris Adams wrote
> Define "awful". I make use of it all the time on home and office
> desktops and even my notebook computer. It makes it easy to reassign
> disk space from purpose A to purpose B (it would be easier if there
> was a way to shrink a mount
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> You can't move PVs.
What do you think pvmove does?
> You need a separate /boot.
That's needed for more than just LVM (and probably won't go away, as it
is a lot simpler to handle a single method in the installer).
> If you use more than one
> disk the
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 14:18 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> >> I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially f
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 07:49:49PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> You can't move PVs. You need a separate /boot. If you use more than one
> disk then it adds significant fragility to the boot process. It slows
> down booting. It provides some functionality that's hugely useful in a
> small num
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:38:05PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Define "awful". I make use of it all the time on home and office
> desktops and even my notebook computer. It makes it easy to reassign
> disk space from purpose A to purpose B (it would be easier if there was
> a way to shrink a mou
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 14:18 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> >> I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially for servers because
> >> of it's features
> >
> > For what it's
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> LVM is functional for enterprise environments but awful for the common
> home or office cases.
Define "awful". I make use of it all the time on home and office
desktops and even my notebook computer. It makes it easy to reassign
disk space from purpose
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially for servers because
>> of it's features
>
> For what it's worth, we've been running btrfs on our school fileservers
> since
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially for servers because
> of it's features
For what it's worth, we've been running btrfs on our school fileservers
since September. After a few teething problems (fixed by
increasing /p
On 02/23/2011 12:50 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 February 2011 15:07:55 Peter Jones wrote:
>
>> 1) can btrfs do encrypted volumes?
>
> Not yet. Although this was a planned feature at some point, according to
> Josef, nobody has done it yet.
>
> If you want to stack it on top of dm-c
On 02/23/2011 01:15 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:54:58AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is
shrunk down to be inst
On 2/23/11 12:15 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:54:58AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is
shrunk down to be install
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:54:58AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is
> >> shrunk down to be installed which creates a bad fs layout which has
>
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:41:49AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> Again, I feel the solution is to have a Fedora architect whose role is
> to realize the problems caused by seemingly isolated changes, and stop
> them from propagating. You don't just replace years of UNIX (or Linux)
> history/heritage
On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is
>> shrunk down to be installed which creates a bad fs layout which has
>> performance implications.
>
> Can you expand upon this more? The f
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 15:07:55 Peter Jones wrote:
> 1) can btrfs do encrypted volumes?
Not yet. Although this was a planned feature at some point, according to
Josef, nobody has done it yet.
If you want to stack it on top of dm-crypt there are caveats as well.
>From btrfs-wiki:
>btrfs
On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is
> shrunk down to be installed which creates a bad fs layout which has
> performance implications.
Can you expand upon this more? The filesystem is shrunk down when the
live image is bu
On 02/23/2011 11:41 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> Again, I feel the solution is to have a Fedora architect whose role is
> to realize the problems caused by seemingly isolated changes, and stop
> them from propagating.
Fedora historically relies on an "open source" model for this - there
are a lot of
On Wed, 23.02.11 11:41, Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) wrote:
> > You seem to spend a lot of time during your installs undoing all the
> > new things that were done for the release. Perhaps a rapid changing,
> > bleeding-edge distribution isn't quite suited to your needs. Maybe
> > you wo
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 07:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >
> >> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
> >> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just fo
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:33:26 -0500
Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
> wrote:
> > On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
> Defaults shou
On 02/23/2011 03:33 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>> I'm actually not that worried about corruption as that is something that
>> can be fixed once discovered. What creeps me out about btrfs at the moment
>> is this:
>>
>> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Help.21__Btrfs_claims_I.27m_out_of_spa
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser wrote:
>>> On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best
experience for th
On 2/23/11 5:38 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 01:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> Various things, better data integrity to start with, and if you
>> install the yum-fs-snapshot you have the ability to rollback easily.
>
> So we got the above + What Lennart mentioned as "benefits"
On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser wrote:
>> On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best
>>> experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the
>>> past" (i.e st
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 09:27 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser wrote:
> > On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
> >> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best
> >> experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the
> >
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser wrote:
> On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best
>> experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the
>> past" (i.e stagnation).
>
> *One* data corruption constitutes
On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best
> experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the
> past" (i.e stagnation).
*One* data corruption constitutes EPIC FAIL. Btrfs is too young,
and will be for yet a while l
On 02/22/2011 10:25 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
>> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
>
> In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decisio
Josef,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Your impression is wrong, there has been quite a bit of work done to
> make BTRFS work well on small devices, it is the default filesystem
> for meego which goes on phones, which is much smaller than anything
> you are going to have on
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Camilo Mesias wrote:
> Hi
>
> I wanted to second these questions...
>
> 2011/2/22 Jóhann B. :
>> Will there be any performance penalties making this move?
> [...]
>> What benefit will this switch bring to the novice desktop end users?
>>
>> Will the novice desktop
Hi
I wanted to second these questions...
2011/2/22 Jóhann B. :
> Will there be any performance penalties making this move?
[...]
> What benefit will this switch bring to the novice desktop end users?
>
> Will the novice desktop end user ever take advantages of any of the features
> that btrfs br
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
>> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
>
> In my personal opinion, this is a poor design
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 14:51:50 -0500,
> Josef Bacik wrote:
>>
>> 3) All the various little tools that we have for putting together
>> LiveCD's that are very ext* centered. I've not even looked at this
>> yet, but I assume it's going t
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
>> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
>
> In my personal opinion, this is a poor desig
On Tue, 22.02.11 22:25, Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> > 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
> > BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
>
> In my personal opinio
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
>> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
>
> In my personal opinion, this is a poor desig
On 02/23/2011 01:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Various things, better data integrity to start with, and if you
> install the yum-fs-snapshot you have the ability to rollback easily.
So we got the above + What Lennart mentioned as "benefits" to the end user.
Now if we continue to hang on to the outd
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 14:51:50 -0500,
Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> 3) All the various little tools that we have for putting together
> LiveCD's that are very ext* centered. I've not even looked at this
> yet, but I assume it's going to be kind of a pain.
I like to see live CDs just use squashfs d
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can
do a lot of volume-y things, and th
2011/2/22 Jóhann B. :
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> So what are your thoughts? Thanks,
>
> Will there be any performance penalties making this move?
>
Who knows, thats what testing is for :). There are some things that
suck with BTRFS, but so it goes with filesystems
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Tue, 22.02.11 14:51, Josef Bacik (jo...@toxicpanda.com) wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> So we're getting close to having a working fsck tool so I wanted to
>> take the opportunity to talk about the future of BTRFS in Fedora.
>> Coming up in
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> So what are your thoughts? Thanks,
Will there be any performance penalties making this move?
I ran it on my workstation when F13 came out with updates+snapshots and while
updating my desktop responsiveness was well not so good.
Novice en
Josef Bacik writes:
2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
Just to clarify -- F16 will still have LVM, but not used by default.
I believe that there's a huge number of existing systems that are
part
[...btrfs and read-only root,/etc...]
Music to my ears.
Glad you're working on this.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 22.02.11 14:51, Josef Bacik (jo...@toxicpanda.com) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So we're getting close to having a working fsck tool so I wanted to
> take the opportunity to talk about the future of BTRFS in Fedora.
> Coming up in F15 we're going to have the first release of Fedora where
> we don'
On 02/22/2011 02:51 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So we're getting close to having a working fsck tool so I wanted to
> take the opportunity to talk about the future of BTRFS in Fedora.
> Coming up in F15 we're going to have the first release of Fedora where
...
>
> So what are your thou
> > 1) GRUB support. Edward Shishkin did GRUB1 patches for BTRFS a while
> > ago, but they were obviously never merged upstream and were also not
> > included into fedora. These would either need to be cleaned up and
> > put into our grub package, or we'd need to put /boot on a different
> > file
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:51:50 -0500
> Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> So we're getting close to having a working fsck tool so I wanted to
>> take the opportunity to talk about the future of BTRFS in Fedora.
> ...snip...
>
>> 1) GRUB suppor
> 1) Fedora 16 ships with BTRFS as the default root filesystem.
> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
>
> 2) Anaconda support. I've already talked with Will Woods about this
> some. Really anaconda
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:51:50 -0500
Josef Bacik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So we're getting close to having a working fsck tool so I wanted to
> take the opportunity to talk about the future of BTRFS in Fedora.
...snip...
> 1) GRUB support. Edward Shishkin did GRUB1 patches for BTRFS a while
> ago, bu
Hello,
So we're getting close to having a working fsck tool so I wanted to
take the opportunity to talk about the future of BTRFS in Fedora.
Coming up in F15 we're going to have the first release of Fedora where
we don't need the special boot option to have the ability to format
you filesystem as
88 matches
Mail list logo
