On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 12:36 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 12:31 PM, JB wrote:
> > OK.
> >
> > Post every week on user, testers, and devel lists:
> > - BTRFS testing reminder
> > - BTRFS info (short notes; entries; pointers to any info, info/man pages)
> > - test instructions
> >
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 16:48 +, JB wrote:
> Bryn M. Reeves redhat.com> writes:
>
> >
> > On 07/14/2011 05:26 PM, JB wrote:
> > > Now just a loud thinking ...
> > > Have you thought about first preparing a CD (even a live CD) with BTRFS
> > > and
> > > some extra preinstalled software like Vi
Adam Jackson redhat.com> writes:
>
> On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 17:49 +, JB wrote:
>
> > I am just suggesting how the devs can reach their audience and communicate
> > with them for a mutual benefit.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs
>
> - ajax
>
>
Well, I w
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 17:49 +, JB wrote:
> I am just suggesting how the devs can reach their audience and communicate
> with them for a mutual benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs
- ajax
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 01:06:45PM -0400, John Dulaney wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 14.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Eric Sandeen:
> >>> bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
> >>> unstable / unfinsihed packages
Bernd Stramm gmail.com> writes:
> ...
> > Try it and see the results. Perhaps it will work
>
> But that is my point - you are not willing to do any part of this
> yourself. You are only instructing others to do specific work.
>
I am not instructing anybody. I am suggesting things.
I have em
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:09:53 + (UTC)
JB wrote:
> Bernd Stramm gmail.com> writes:
>
> > ...
> > Would you help out with testing if given these specific
> > instructions? If not yourself, who would actually do this?
> > ...
>
> I am only suggesting a mini form of so called user testing (th
Bernd Stramm gmail.com> writes:
> ...
> Would you help out with testing if given these specific instructions?
> If not yourself, who would actually do this?
> ...
I am only suggesting a mini form of so called user testing (that's what it is
called and practised in a software development corpor
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:31:44 + (UTC)
JB wrote:
> Bryn M. Reeves redhat.com> writes:
>
> >
> > On 07/14/2011 05:48 PM, JB wrote:
> > > Good. Perhaps a weekly snapshot CD, with the latest BTRFS and
> > > related utils, so that the testing would be more up-to-date and
> > > meaningful. JB
> >
Michael Cronenworth cchtml.com> writes:
> ...
> If you're that concerned about the quality of Fedora 16 then I would
> suggest you join the test list, become a proventester, and attend QA
> meetings.
>
> (Ranting on this list and making demands won't make it happen.)I am not
> ranting
I am n
On 07/14/2011 12:31 PM, JB wrote:
> OK.
>
> Post every week on user, testers, and devel lists:
> - BTRFS testing reminder
> - BTRFS info (short notes; entries; pointers to any info, info/man pages)
> - test instructions
> - a link where to obtain latest Fedora snapshot/nightly live composes with
>
Bryn M. Reeves redhat.com> writes:
>
> On 07/14/2011 05:48 PM, JB wrote:
> > Good. Perhaps a weekly snapshot CD, with the latest BTRFS and related utils,
> > so that the testing would be more up-to-date and meaningful.
> > JB
>
> http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes/
>
> Regar
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 14.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Eric Sandeen:
>>> bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
>>> unstable / unfinsihed packages should never be default in GA nor replace
>>> existing and over a long time
On 07/14/2011 05:48 PM, JB wrote:
> Good. Perhaps a weekly snapshot CD, with the latest BTRFS and related utils,
> so that the testing would be more up-to-date and meaningful.
> JB
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes/
Regards,
Bryn.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproje
Bryn M. Reeves redhat.com> writes:
>
> On 07/14/2011 05:26 PM, JB wrote:
> > Now just a loud thinking ...
> > Have you thought about first preparing a CD (even a live CD) with BTRFS and
> > some extra preinstalled software like VirtualBox etc just for testing ?
>
> What, you mean like the live
On 07/14/2011 05:26 PM, JB wrote:
> Now just a loud thinking ...
> Have you thought about first preparing a CD (even a live CD) with BTRFS and
> some extra preinstalled software like VirtualBox etc just for testing ?
What, you mean like the live and non-live Fedora ISOs that have had btrfs
support
Josef Bacik toxicpanda.com> writes:
> ...
> We've reached the point where we really need wider user
> testing, because no amount of testing we do will ever be able to match
> up to the crazy things users do.
Please understand - convincing people (technical and non-technical) to
install a regular
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:10 AM, JB wrote:
> Well, then you have to read the thread more carefully before you bark back -
> right in the first OP's post you have references, e.g.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/18/144
Heh - now that you provide links it's better... anyway, that's a
completely hi
On 07/14/2011 11:12 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Something tells me if btrfs had been called "ext5" people would
> just nod their heads and move on. ;)
Heh ... like this ... Its not too late is it :-)
How about ext5-btrfs - and high level user space tools can shorten it
to ext5 :-)
--
devel ma
On 07/14/2011 10:59 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>
>> Another (Q) - once the format changes, will there be tools to change
>> the online format of existing filesystems - or will we need to delete
>> and start fresh ?
>>
>
> All format changes happen automatically (usually with a mount option
> so as
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM, JB wrote:
> Josef Bacik toxicpanda.com> writes:
>
>> ...
>> I've already said
>> that if it's not in good shape by Alpha the switch won't even be made,
>> so quit your bitching.
>>
>> Josef
>
> Josef,
> would it be possible, BEFORE (in case that) you decide to sw
On 7/14/11 10:21 AM, JB wrote:
> Josef Bacik toxicpanda.com> writes:
>
>> ...
>> I've already said
>> that if it's not in good shape by Alpha the switch won't even be made,
>> so quit your bitching.
>>
>> Josef
>
> Josef,
> would it be possible, BEFORE (in case that) you decide to switch on bef
Josef Bacik toxicpanda.com> writes:
> ...
> I've already said
> that if it's not in good shape by Alpha the switch won't even be made,
> so quit your bitching.
>
> Josef
Josef,
would it be possible, BEFORE (in case that) you decide to switch on before
Alpha, to present some test suite results
On 7/13/11 9:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 14.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Eric Sandeen:
>>> bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
>>> unstable / unfinsihed packages should never be default in GA nor replace
>>> existing and over a long time well working things
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 14.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Eric Sandeen:
>>> bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
>>> unstable / unfinsihed packages should never be default in GA nor replace
>>> existing and over a long time well w
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 10:17 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>> On 07/14/2011 02:54 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I
>
On 07/14/2011 10:17 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 02:54 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I
>>> dont think we want to have raid on top of btrfs ... right?
>>>
Am 14.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Eric Sandeen:
>> bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
>> unstable / unfinsihed packages should never be default in GA nor replace
>> existing and over a long time well working things - never!
>
> You might have said the same thing
On 07/14/2011 02:54 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I
>> dont think we want to have raid on top of btrfs ... right?
>>
>> Ric - what is the current status of RAID-5 ?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 03:06:33PM +0100, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 03:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>Well it should be more like
> >>
> >>/boot/dev/sda1
> >>swap/dev/sda2
> >>btrfs
> >Maybe I don't understand th
On 07/14/2011 03:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> Well it should be more like
>>
>> /boot/dev/sda1
>> swap/dev/sda2
>> btrfs
> Maybe I don't understand this. Is btrfs on /dev/sda3, or are the swap
> and root filesystems some
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Well it should be more like
>
> /boot/dev/sda1
> swap/dev/sda2
> btrfs
Maybe I don't understand this. Is btrfs on /dev/sda3, or are the swap
and root filesystems somehow combined on /dev/sda2? And if the
latter, how does one
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>
>
> I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I
> dont think we want to have raid on top of btrfs ... right?
>
> Ric - what is the current status of RAID-5 ?
This requires some other big changes that are disk
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:22:17AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Is this how F16 will be set up? The Feature page[1] suggests that LVM
> will be turned off by default, in which case it should look more like:
That would involve changes to Anaconda, and as far as I know there's
nobody curren
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 6:08 AM, JB wrote:
> Ric Wheeler redhat.com> writes:
>
>> ...
>> I think that it would be really rare to see pristine, academic algorithms
>> implemented exactly as a non-coding mathematician designed them in code :)
>> ...
>
> Well, not convinced ... :-)
>
> The algorithm
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Good timing! I have a related BTRFS / Fedora 16 question.
>
> I have used the "btrfs" Anaconda option, and I get btrfs appearing as
> a choice in the menus. However if I just change the root filesystem
> to btrfs, then I would get:
>
>
I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I
dont think we want to have raid on top of btrfs ... right?
Ric - what is the current status of RAID-5 ?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 07/14/2011 01:07 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 13.07.2011 23:54, schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
>>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>> That's not the case at all, I'm not sure where you are getting that.
>>> If we don't have a released offline
On 07/14/2011 11:08 AM, JB wrote:
> Ric Wheeler redhat.com> writes:
>
>> ...
>> I think that it would be really rare to see pristine, academic algorithms
>> implemented exactly as a non-coding mathematician designed them in code :)
>> ...
> Well, not convinced ... :-)
>
> The algorithm has to be
Ric Wheeler redhat.com> writes:
> ...
> I think that it would be really rare to see pristine, academic algorithms
> implemented exactly as a non-coding mathematician designed them in code :)
> ...
Well, not convinced ... :-)
The algorithm has to be taken holisticly - it has been designed, tes
Matej Cepl redhat.com> writes:
>
> Dne 14.7.2011 09:28, JB napsal(a):
> > The original b-tree algorithm was a result of an academic study,
> > formulation,
> > and empirical testing, and was subjected to scientific scrutiny.
>
> Ehm, I don't claim to have any deep knowledge on the matter, but
Good timing! I have a related BTRFS / Fedora 16 question.
I have used the "btrfs" Anaconda option, and I get btrfs appearing as
a choice in the menus. However if I just change the root filesystem
to btrfs, then I would get:
/boot /dev/sda2
PV
VG
Martin Langhoff gmail.com> writes:
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:50 AM, JB gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have difficulty swallowing the fact that there are so many Red Hat,
> > Oracle,
> > and other famous technology names involved (officially or dev's private
> > contributions) in development of BT
Dne 14.7.2011 09:28, JB napsal(a):
> The original b-tree algorithm was a result of an academic study, formulation,
> and empirical testing, and was subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Ehm, I don't claim to have any deep knowledge on the matter, but I have
here B-trees explained in Wirth (1975), and
On 07/14/2011 09:50 AM, JB wrote:
> Ric Wheeler redhat.com> writes:
>
>> ...
>
>> Given that my family is from the hills of eastern
>> Kentucky, I also find the "hill billie" comment off putting.
>> ...
> Ric, no offense ... injecting Kentucky hills was misguided ... I happened to
> visit the sta
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:50 AM, JB wrote:
> I have difficulty swallowing the fact that there are so many Red Hat, Oracle,
> and other famous technology names involved (officially or dev's private
> contributions) in development of BTRFS, and at the same time they practice
> such loosely approach
Ric Wheeler redhat.com> writes:
> ...
> Given that my family is from the hills of eastern
> Kentucky, I also find the "hill billie" comment off putting.
> ...
Ric, no offense ... injecting Kentucky hills was misguided ... I happened to
visit the state few times and was impressed with how nice
On 07/14/2011 08:28 AM, JB wrote:
> Josef Bacik toxicpanda.com> writes:
>
>> ...
>> We aren't aiming for "hopefully stable", we're aiming for actually stable
>> and reasonably safe. If we don't meet certain basic requirements no
>> switch will be made and everything will carry on as normal.
>>
>
Josef Bacik toxicpanda.com> writes:
> ...
> We aren't aiming for "hopefully stable", we're aiming for actually stable
> and reasonably safe. If we don't meet certain basic requirements no
> switch will be made and everything will carry on as normal.
>
> I'm not trying to shove Btrfs down peopl
2011/7/13 Eric Sandeen
> On 7/13/11 4:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > Am 13.07.2011 23:51, schrieb Farkas Levente:
> >>> So there's my long ass explanation of why VMs on Btrfs suck. I'm
> >>> sorry, I'm aware of the problem and I'm trying to fix it, but it's a
> >>> slow going process.
> >>
> >>
On 7/13/11 4:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 13.07.2011 23:51, schrieb Farkas Levente:
>>> So there's my long ass explanation of why VMs on Btrfs suck. I'm
>>> sorry, I'm aware of the problem and I'm trying to fix it, but it's a
>>> slow going process.
>>
>> if you said that this's the current st
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.07.2011 23:54, schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
>> Farkas Levente wrote:
>>> if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
>>> as a default fs for f16. so please postpone it at least to f17.
>>
>> If f16 gets ke
Am 13.07.2011 23:54, schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
> Farkas Levente wrote:
>> if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
>> as a default fs for f16. so please postpone it at least to f17.
>
> If f16 gets kernel 3.1 (or backported stuff into 3.0), IMHO there is no
> re
Am 13.07.2011 23:51, schrieb Farkas Levente:
>> So there's my long ass explanation of why VMs on Btrfs suck. I'm
>> sorry, I'm aware of the problem and I'm trying to fix it, but it's a
>> slow going process.
>
> if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
> as a default
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 16:54:44 -0500,
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Farkas Levente wrote:
> > if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
> > as a default fs for f16. so please postpone it at least to f17.
>
> If f16 gets kernel 3.1 (or backported stuff into 3.0), IM
Farkas Levente wrote:
> if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
> as a default fs for f16. so please postpone it at least to f17.
If f16 gets kernel 3.1 (or backported stuff into 3.0), IMHO there is no
reason to slip it one release.
--
devel mailing list
devel@list
On 07/13/2011 11:14 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote:
>> Today I'll be switching from BTRFS to Ext4 again because of the troubles
>> I've been having with
>> the New Linux Filesystem. As BTRFS is going to be the Default in F16 I
>> wanted the develope
2011/7/13 Josef Bacik
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Manuel Escudero
> wrote:
> > Today I'll be switching from BTRFS to Ext4 again because of the troubles
> > I've been having with
> > the New Linux Filesystem. As BTRFS is going to be the Default in F16 I
> > wanted the developers to
> > kno
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote:
> Today I'll be switching from BTRFS to Ext4 again because of the troubles
> I've been having with
> the New Linux Filesystem. As BTRFS is going to be the Default in F16 I
> wanted the developers to
> know what kind of troubles I've been expe
59 matches
Mail list logo
