Slashdot Mirror
Ext4 Advances As Interim Step To Btrfs
Heise.de's Kernel Log has a look at the ext4 filesystem as Linus Torvalds has integrated a large collection of patches for it into the kernel main branch. "This signals that with the next kernel version 2.6.28, the successor to ext3 will finally leave behind its 'hot' development phase." The article notes that ext4 developer Theodore Ts'o (tytso) is in favor of ultimately moving Linux to a modern, "next-generation" file system. His preferred choice is btrfs, and Heise notes an email Ts'o sent to the Linux Kernel Mailing List a week back positioning ext4 as a bridge to btrfs.
Couldn't they come up with a better name than "BuTteR FaSe?" I know I can't be the only one who read it like that. Call it anything but that.
So it incorporates compression by vowel ommission? Brllnt!
Unless ZFS has patent issues, why not just work on having ZFS as Linux's standard FS, after ext3?
ZFS offers a lot of capabilities, from no need to worry about a LVM layer, to snapshotting, to excellent error detection, even encryption and compression hooks.
I would like transparent, administrator controlled, versioning. Modified a word document and saved it in place? root can go back and get the old version ( and, alternatively, the user can. root could disable this functionality ).
The pieces are in place, it's doable, just someone needs to program it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Butter FS? Are you kidding me?
Here is your first official list of jokes. Please contribute.
1. You're still running ext4? I can't believe it's not ButterFS!
2. But will it run on toast?
3. Will fsck be renamed to butterknife?
4. If your system overheats will your filesystem melt?
5. If you use ButterFS too much, will it turn into FAT?
6. If you leave ButterFS on your volume too long, will your hard drive start to reek?
7. Will the next version of ButterFS be called GoatButterFS, just like the next version of Leopard is Snow Leopard?
8. "Tough" notebooks will never have their hard drives formatted with ButterFS, because if you dropped them, they would always land hard drive down.
9. When you submit your dead ButterFS hard drive to a data recovery centre, will they have an intern lick it to get the data off instead of putting it under a read head?
These are getting kind of desperate -- your turn now.
Honestly, what is it with FOSS and crappy names? (looking at you, gimp)
Great for playing "Hello Kitty! Adventures"
Anybody want my mod points?
Butter Fase probably intended as Butter Face.
Sounds like "But Her Face" as in: She has a great body, but her face...
A Linux article on Slashdot!?
Why not? It's a good analogy for FOSS after all. Great software, robust and all, but her face...
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
You're right. BTRFS is really silly. I recommend that the shortened form be ButtFS.
"Couldn't they come up with a better name than "BuTteR FaSe?" I know I can't be the only one who read it like that. Call it anything but that."
I read it as:
BeTteR FileSystem
I guess we'll have to part was :P
Good, strong file-bearing hips!
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
ZFS duplicates a lot of functionality that belongs outside of a filesystem.
Very true.
It wouldn't be possible to duplicate RAID-Z with LVM.
Also true.
And the features which could be duplicated, couldn't be done nearly as well without a little more knowledge of the filesystem.
The real problem here is that we're finding out that generic block devices aren't enough to do everything we want to do outside the filesystem itself. Or, if they are, it's incredibly clumsy. Trivial example: If I want a copy-on-write snapshot, I have to set aside (ahead of time) some fixed amount of space that it can expand into. If I guess high, I waste space. If I guess low, I have to either expand it (somehow, if that's even possible) or lose my snapshot.
A filesystem which natively implemented COW could also trivially implement snapshots which take up exactly as much space as there are differences between the increments. But because of the way the Linux VFS is structured, this kind of functionality would have to be in a single filesystem, and would be duplicated across all filesystems. Best case, it'd be like ext3's JBD, as a kind of shared library.
A humble proposal: We need another layer, between the block layer and the filesystem layer -- call it an extent layer -- which is simply concerned with allocating some amount of space, and (perhaps) assigning it a unique ID. Filesystems could sit above this layer and implement whatever crazy optimizations or semantics they want -- linear vs btree vs whatever for directories, POSIX vs SQL, whatever.
The extent layer itself would only be concerned with allocating extents of some requested size, and actually storing the data. But this would be enough information to effectively handle mirroring, striping, snapshotting, copy-on-write, etc.
It wouldn't be universal -- I've said nothing about the on-disk format, and, indeed, some filesystems exist on Linux solely for that purpose -- vfat, ntfs, udf, etc. Those filesystems could be done pretty much exactly the way they're done now. After all, the existence of a block layer in no way implies that every filesystem must be tied to a block device (see proc, sys, fuse, etc.)
But I think it would work very well for filesystems which did choose to implement it. I think it would provide the best of ZFS and LVM.
I haven't actually been seriously following filesystem development for years, so maybe this is already done. Or maybe it's a bad idea. If not, hopefully some kernel developers are reading this.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
That's exactly what they're doing. The plan is to limit every directory to exactly two files or subdirectories that will be kept in alphabetical order. That way, you can find any file on your drive in log(n) time. Future updates are planned for people who have more than two songs by the same artist.
I read it as BeaterFS and wondered if it was too soon for ReiserFS jokes.
I'd like to know why Ted Tso and others are working on ext4? Even when ext4 is feature complete it will be the #3 filesystem in linux in terms of features and scalability behind xfs and jfs. I'd like to know what Ted Tso and others grudge against xfs and jfs is because they basically wont even acknowledge those filesystems.
btrfs does have some nice looking features, its basically a gpl rewrite of zfs.
The weakness with linux is in the LVM or EVMS layer. They both suck in that they are not enterprise ready (ie multi TB filesystems, 100+ MB/s sustained read/write) in that they cause unexplained IO hicups, lockups and kernel panics. LVM/EVMS certainly work fine for Joe Blow's HTPC, or a paltry 100GB database but they fall down when under serious load.
This is the problem with open source. Certain areas, like filesystem development attract all the developers, and other areas like LVM/EVMS are seen as busting rocks and nobody wants to work on them. The results is we get a plethora of second rate filesystems (ie ext4) and a buggy LVM/EVMS layer that nobody wants to work on.
Max Volume Size: 8 TiB.
That's not enough. Given that 1TB storage devices are on the market now, that could become outdated quite quickly. You'd be foolish to adopt that sort of filesystem, unless you were absolutely positive that you'd never upgrade (unlikely).
Honestly, ZFS seems like it's the holy grail of filesystems. There are a few small issues that might need to be worked out, though it seems as close to "ideal" as you'd ever be able to get.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Well, it looks interesting feature-wise but they seem to be explicitly targeting SuSE - which is a no-go for most people.
From a glance at the docs (hey, at least they have docs, that's a plus) it also seems like it's tied to specific versions of EVMS and other parts of the kernel, thus if you don't run a "blessed, certified" SuSE kernel with all the nasty patches then you're on your own.
Just google for "debian|gentoo|redhat|... novell nss filesystem". Apparently nobody even tried to run NSS on another distro, or at least didn't write about it.
I, for one, would only touch this on a blackbox, vendor-supported appliance but never consider it for a production server of my own (none of which run SuSE).
If they worked towards integrating it into the mainline kernel, now that would be nice.
yes, IIRC Windows NT uses rings 0 and 4. However, the problem would not be made better by having more rings, the performance cost is the transition between rings, nothing special about the rings themselves. eg progressing from ring 10 to ring 9 is as expensive as going from ring 0 to 1, or from ring 0 to ring 100.
This is the internet, it's never too soon.
They feed him. They put a roof over his head.
They even bathe him.
He might as well devote himself to filesystems.
The weakness with linux is in the LVM or EVMS layer. They both suck in that they are not enterprise ready (ie multi TB filesystems, 100+ MB/s sustained read/write) in that they cause unexplained IO hicups, lockups and kernel panics. LVM/EVMS certainly work fine for Joe Blow's HTPC, or a paltry 100GB database but they fall down when under serious load.
LVM has been rock-solid for me with a ~7TB and 2 2TB ext3 filesystems (24 500GB disks) over the course of a year and a half. No problems migrating extents all over the place when I needed to swap disks in and out. Almost identical to HPUX in functionality, but without the sizing constraints.
But, when I tried xfs for kicks I found out that a 7TB filesystem means you need 7GB of RAM to fsck it - impossible on a 32-bit system, I also had a week where I it all went in the shitter because I ran free-space to zero and started getting OS panics and data corruption.
I'm definitely considering jfs for the next generation, my main complaint with ext3 has been ridiculously slow deletes and fsck's. Problems I have read don't exist with jfs.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I hope you're joking.
ext2 is nice and simple, but it's neither fast not reliable. It uses a linear search to find directory entries, which means it's very slow on large directories, like Maildir mailboxes. It doesn't do tail packing which means it wastes space and is slower with small files. It's not reliable because without a journal it needs a fsck after a bad shutdown which takes ages on a modern disk, and recovers it worse than a journal would.
Just search for benchmarks, something like reiserfs beats ext2 by huge margins when it comes to important workloads such as a mail server.
There are very good reasons why distributions generally go with ext3, or one of the other filesystems. I haven't seen ext2 as the default option for the root FS in a very long time.
You think that's bad? The file system check command is buttfsck!
Just search for benchmarks, something like reiserfs beats ext2 by huge margins when it comes to important workloads such as a mail server.
Hell, it probably beats it to death.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Yeah, I remember they used to talk about this in the Gentoo handbook; use ext2 for /boot, but ext3 for everything that you actually care about.
> Just search for benchmarks, something like reiserfs beats ext2 by huge margins
You mean like these ones where ext2 beats reiserfs in most cases and is at least as fast in the others?
> I hope you're joking. ext2 is nice and simple, but it's neither fast not reliable.
> It uses a linear search to find directory entries, which means it's very slow on
> large directories, like Maildir mailboxes.
Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around huge mail servers. Some of us actually run Linux on a desktop, and so don't really care about how well an fs handles a million maildir mailboxes. Latency is the most important criteria, and reiserfs is just too complicated to deliver it, as well as being a largely fringe fs. Especially now with Hans gone, it would become even more fringe.
> It doesn't do tail packing which means it wastes space and is slower with small files.
Yup, I'd like to have efficient small file handling. But really, it is better to avoid having many small files in the first place. Use compressed archives to store such things; it's quite a bit more efficient, and does not require exotic file systems which most normal people (i.e. your customers) will not use.
> It's not reliable because without a journal it needs a fsck after a bad shutdown
I used to do that, and then I got a UPS instead and switched back to pure ext2. The performance hit from journalling is simply too high to tolerate. A decent UPS (pretty much anything made by APC) will prevent the crashes in the first place, solving the problem completely and without any unnecessary overhead. With UPS prices being as low as they are, there is no excuse for not having one, so I think that journalling will become obsolete in some near future.
so I think that journalling will become obsolete in some near future.
I bet in 1992 you were still thinking color TV's wouldn't last either . . .
Look, a UPS is a great thing. I run one myself. Heck with more and more people switching to laptops a lot of people are running a "UPS" without even realizing it. The simple fact though is that modern processors and disks are so fast that the minimal speed impact of journaling is barely noticeable. It's certainly not worth giving up over some marginal speed gains.
I mean we're talking about a world where people will give up tons of speed in their computer just to make the WINDOWS WOBBLE when you move them, or to make teddy bears wave at them from the system tray. Do you honestly believe that they're going to risk having their files corrupt on an unexpected power outage for a fraction of a percent increase in meaningful speed?
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Look at the bottom of the page. That's from 2003. Of kernel 2.6.0. A lot of code changed since then.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this. Latency is mostly influenced by the hard disk. And on a desktop the disk shouldn't be a bottleneck anyway.
Except there's lots and lots of those files in a modern Linux system. Config files, icon files, and small libraries for instance. Additionally many files are searched in different paths, making a fast directory search important.
Just as a RAID is not a backup, an UPS isn't a disk journal. One of those days you'll get a long outage, or the power cable will turn out to fit badly into the power supply, have a kernel panic, the UPS won't switch to battery fast enough, etc. And then after several minutes of fsck something important might end up broken.
If the journal causes you a noticeable slowdown you probably aren't a typical user. In typical usage the disk should be mostly idle after boot.
I don't see a point in going forward insanely fast without brakes. I'll take the safety. I have an UPS on every computer, and still have a journalled FS, because there were times when the UPS was of no help. Like yesterday, when I upgraded my laptop's RAM, booted it, and found that with more than 2GB RAM, the BIOS maps the video RAM above 4GB. The video card showed its displeasure with that state of affairs by corrupting the display and locking up. Had no choice but to powercycle the box.
Yeah, because systems never kernel panic, or crash for any other reason than power outages... Wake me up after you've been waiting for fsck to finish on your 1TB drive and it's been running for the last 72 hours.
Whether or not you've had a system shutdown uncleanly in the past, you certainly will at some time in the future, so why not just use ext3 and save yourself the headache of a 3 day long fsck?
It's also painfully obvious that you've never worked as a sysadmin before. You try explaining to your manager that the reason why your company's server will take 3 days to come back online is that you wanted to save a few microseconds of latency when users were accessing files...
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
I used to do that, and then I got a UPS instead and switched back to pure ext2. The performance hit from journalling is simply too high to tolerate. A decent UPS (pretty much anything made by APC) will prevent the crashes in the first place, solving the problem completely and without any unnecessary overhead. With UPS prices being as low as they are, there is no excuse for not having one, so I think that journalling will become obsolete in some near future.
Our industrial UPS (which is orders of magnitude more reliable than any APC product ever made) recently exploded, burnt, and shorted out the entire building's power. It spiked thousands of volts through the protected equipment and destroyed a half-dozen servers. The fire was fierce enough to cause our fm200 system (halon equivalent) to dump, which put out the fire before the main battery bank was breached.
This was the first time I've ever seen an UPS bigger than a Chrysler fail, but I've seen dozens of failures from those crappy little APC units. At one time I had a stack of burnt-out ones in my basement (I used to salvage the batteries for cash).
If your disaster survivability plan depends on any single piece of hardware never failing, it's no good. Offsite backup is your friend.
Not exactly. To effectively change the actual permissions that the permissions rings allow, stacks, segment registers, i/o permission bitmaps, and page tables (among other things) have to be changed. Generally this means reading values from memory into caches, which is slow. Probably the slowest of them all is the page cache. Invalidating the entire page cache is godawful slow, and is necessary if each separate user-space has a truly private address space and not simply a chunk out of the entire virtual address space. Even for operating systems that partition the virtual address space into regions for each user process, the local descriptor (or equivalent) table for segment access needs to be reloaded. This has to happen for every cross-privilege-level call. It is *much* faster to simply call another kernel mode function (push some stuff on the stack, change the instruction register, and you're done) without messing with caches.
In fact, it would be even faster to not separate the kernel and user space processes at all, and instead use formal verification or a virtual machine (which really just means a smaller instruction set that's easier to verify) to prove that no user process could ever mess with the kernel or other processes. Virtual machines for languages are essentially at this stage today; they implement what would constitute a kernel as the run-time level portions of the virtual machine, running the virtualized software in the same address space. There have been some attacks based on virtual machine weaknesses or memory corruption that break the protection model by changing data structures so that they violate the security model. This can happen in OS's that use hardware protection as well, there are just fewer places in memory that random changes can cause problems (just the page tables and other security paraphernalia), making it less likely.