Btrfs Could Be the Default File System In Ubuntu Meerkat

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Btrfs Could Be the Default File System In Ubuntu Meerkat

Posted by Soulskill on Friday May 14, 2010 @09:32AM from the shake-things-up dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The EXT family of file systems (ext2, ext3, ext4) have ruled many Linux distributions for a long time, and Ubuntu has been no exception. But things may no longer be the same for Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat. Canonical's Scott James Remnant said in a blog post that plans are on for doing work to have btrfs as an installation option, and that the possibility of making it the default file system in Ubuntu 10.10 has not been ruled out."

269 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by ls671 · 2010-05-14 09:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers. I might try it on desktops/workstations. Not that I use Ubuntu at all. Btrfs is supported by kernel 2.6.32 on other distros as well if you care to configure it properly.
I remember failure stories with other latest and greatest filesystems lately and I will let others continue to test and identify bugs before I use it on servers/SAN with critical data.
From the btrfs wiki https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page :

btrfs is a new copy on write filesystem for Linux...
Btrfs is under heavy development, but every effort is being made to keep the filesystem stable and fast. As of 2.6.31, we only plan to make forward compatible disk format changes, and many users have been experimenting with Btrfs on their systems with good results. Please email the Btrfs mailing list if you have any problems or questions while using Btrfs.

--
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
1. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by pwagland · 2010-05-14 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  From the article:
  
  [The decision to make btrfs default] would only made with the knowledge that production servers and desktops can be run on Lucid as a fully supported version of Ubuntu at the same time. I’d give it a 1-in-5 chance.
  So it would appear that you are not the only one who would only run it on a server...
2. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by pwagland · 2010-05-14 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  From the article:
  
  [The decision to make btrfs default] would only made with the knowledge that production servers and desktops can be run on Lucid as a fully supported version of Ubuntu at the same time. I’d give it a 1-in-5 chance.
  So it would appear that you are not the only one who would only run it on a server...
  Of course, that should be who would not run it on a server...
3. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by jd · 2010-05-14 10:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I've run filesystems that were considered ok-but-early-adopter on servers before. Early XFS releases, for example. It's perhaps not really comparable as SGI had already developed XFS v1 on their workstations and so most of the code was fairly heavily-tested before the Linux port of XFS v2. But there's another consideration - if you look at the way btrfs is described, most of the individual components look a lot simpler than are used in other next-gen filesystems. The difference isn't great between, say, a b-tree and a b+tree or a b*tree, and most filesystem coders are well beyond the stage of making errors on simple abstract data types (right?), but simple components assembled in complex ways are generally more trust-worthy than complex components assembled in simple ways.
  In fact, going back to the early XFS days (when SGI released Red Hat installers and even a few releases before), I found XFS to be much more stable and much more reliable than reiserfs, even though reiserfs has been around longer and was considered mainstream.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
4. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by KiloByte · 2010-05-14 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  reiserfs is a nightmare if you care the slightest about safety of your data.
  It comes from the guy who says any filesystem has to be recoded from scratch every five years. Having two separate machines have every single file >4KB shredded weeks after installing and some light use is appalling, especially that no other filesystem ever made me lose more than a handful of files per disaster (mechanical disk failures excluded).
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
5. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by CAIMLAS · 2010-05-14 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  but simple components assembled in complex ways are generally more trust-worthy than complex components assembled in simple ways.
  This is (probably?) true. At least it sounds true. :)
  It doesn't hold true for XFS (I seem to recall the code was reasonably complex), but I've heard it holds true for ZFS. The first release of ZFS was incredibly small/few lines of code, and it's really not all that large as it sits today.
  
  In fact, going back to the early XFS days (when SGI released Red Hat installers and even a few releases before), I found XFS to be much more stable and much more reliable than reiserfs, even though reiserfs has been around longer and was considered mainstream.
  I started using XFS in the summer of 2000 on Linux (this was at least 6 months before reiserfs was released). I started building servers with it (Debian, of course) in the spring of 2001. In that time, I've had a total of two problems with it: one was due to corruption caused by the disk controller and the other caused by a bad power supply: neither resulted in filesystem loss or irreparable damage, but the power supply glitching came close.
  In my experience, XFS has been more stable than the extended filesystems as well - though ext2 is pretty decent and seems to just keep ticking, but suffers from more actual problems. I had to laugh when so-called knowledgeable people were using reiserfs, only to later get bit in the ass by its stability issues: lost files, corruption, and filesystems simply disappearing (oh joy).
  As for the topic at hand... I'm still running XFS (and ZFS on FreeBSD). I will likely jump to btrfs once a sufficient period of time passes that I don't hear of problems: the Linux kernel developers have not, historically, proven to be all that good at designing a stable and well-performing filesystem, so my trust for their competence is somewhat low in that regard.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
6. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by icebike · 2010-05-14 17:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Two is your sample size?
  I ran reiser on 108 production servers for years and never lost a byte of data due to the FS. It was robust as hell.
  We had two instances where power surges did take down a server all we needed to do was mount the drive in another machine and run reiserfsck. The resize capability was a godsend.
  I suggest your problem was somewhere other than Reiserfs.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by Damouze · 2010-05-14 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  IMHO, XFS is a far better choice anyway. It's fast and it's stable. I have used it on my systems for years now.
  
  --
  And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
8. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by KiloByte · 2010-05-14 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  You see, after two total losses in a short time period, I'd be suicidal to give reiser a yet another chance.
  Of course, nearly all filesystem lossage is caused either by hardware failure or, on desktops, the wonderful nVidia drivers which until several years ago seemed to be worse than any single common hardware cause.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
9. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-15 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Never lost a byte...
  Lost a body for a while though...
10. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by hardwarefreak · 2010-05-15 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  I've run filesystems that were considered ok-but-early-adopter on servers before. Early XFS releases, for example. It's perhaps not really comparable as SGI had already developed XFS v1 on their workstations and so most of the code was fairly heavily-tested before the Linux port of XFS v2..
  XFS was, and is, very mature. However, I just want to point out that XFS gained most of its scalability, maturity, and performance development whilst running on the Origin and Onyx 2000/3000 supercomputers than it ever did on SGI's workstation platforms such as the Octane and O2 systems. SGIs supercomputer platforms became the bulk of their system sales shortly after introduction, with workstation sales falling off dramatically from the late 1990s into the early 2000s then eventually being dropped completely, along with all the other vendors' RISC workstations, including DEC, IBM, HP, and SUN.
  With the Origin/Onyx architecture and its XIO bus chip fully integrated into the NUMALink interconnect came Guaranteed Rate I/O code in IRIX and the Real Time option in XFS. The XIO hub chip contained hardware logic that allowed guaranteed data rates for a given filesystem at the bus hardware level. It was absolutely ingenious technology, and allowed SGI to dominate the digital broadcast video business for quite some time. Unfortunately GRIO didn't make it into the Altix systems or Linux as XIO was dropped in favor of PCI-x and PCIe in order to lower costs and increase the availability of third party HBAs.
  Regarding XFS scalability, SGI's sole focus from the late 90s on was the scientific supercomputer/server market. From the Origin/Onyx 2000 onward, SGI's NUMA/IRIX machines scaled initially to 512 sockets in a single system image, with NASA Ames successfully running an O2K system with 1024 sockets in SSI. These machines needed massive amounts of RAID storage for high speed scratch space and semi-permanent data storage, and XFS had to provide high performance filesystem operations atop the IRIX volume manager spanning dozens if not hundreds of external FC SAN RAID LUNs. XFS was providing Terabyte filesystems before most of us had ever heard the word "terabyte". Today, on SGI hardware at various labs around the world, XFS is supporting petabyte filesystems.
  .
11. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by Bent+Spoke · 2010-05-15 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  Those who installed Mythbuntu learned first hand of the issues with Reiser.
  The high throughput of myth recording (2gig per hour) exercised bugs
  that most regular users would never see.
  In my case my capacity disappeared slowly over the space of
  a month or so until my empty disk was full!
  So the "most users find it great" endorsement just doesn't mean much anymore.
  Really, I hope that Ubuntu has learned by now that ext3 has been hugely
  tested, in virtually every concievable combination.
12. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-15 21:24 · Score: 0
  
  I've run Reiser on one local filesystem on one disk. It rebooted one time due to a power fail. During the reboot it suggested I unmount it and run reiserfsck. After that, it wouldn't even mount anymore. All data lost.
  Please, convince me.
13. Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... by sjames · 2010-05-17 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  A big determining factor was how full the filesystem was. Reiserfsck would tend to barf horribly if there wasn't enough extra free space available in the volume, then you'd have to dd the partition onto another larger drive and do a more extensive rebuild. Not insurmountable given some time, but of course this sort of thing only happens at 2 A.M. when you don't have a larger drive on hand and need to be back up now.
please... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 09:37 · Score: 1, Informative

wait until it is more stable than ext4 is right now. I picked ext4 when I installed 10.04 last week, and it caused data corruption on the first boot. Just saying.
1. Re:please... by 0123456 · 2010-05-14 09:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Btfrs already seems to be more stable than ext4: every PC I own with an ext4 partition has failed to boot at some point due to disk corruption, whereas the one with an Btfrs partition has worked fine for the few months since I configured it. I eventually turned on data journaling to try to stop ext4 corrupting disks and so far that's been safe but largely because it's eliminated all the supposed performance benefits of ext4.
2. Re:please... by ls671 · 2010-05-14 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Ok don't tell anybody but I am still on ext2, pretty stable in humble my opinion ;-)
  Jounaling and other functionality just isn't required for my servers and use cases. I would use ext3 or maybe even btrfs if I have to install Linux on a laptop.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
3. Re:please... by jornak · 2010-05-14 09:45 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  In humble your opinion, sir?
  I not understand do.
4. Re:please... by MrHanky · 2010-05-14 09:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Are you certain that it's due to FS corruption? I've had ext4 fail to boot due to silly errors like the last write being one hour into the future (some kind of time zone confusion), but no corruption at all. I ask only because most people seem incapable of reading an error message and just doing the /sbin/fsck.ext4 /dev/sdaX that it explicitly calls for.
5. Re:please... by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2010-05-14 09:54 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Do not question master Yoda!
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
6. Re:please... by ls671 · 2010-05-14 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I not understand do -> do I not understand ?
  In humble your opinion -> opinion In humble your ?
  see, simple enough..
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
7. Re:please... by 0123456 · 2010-05-14 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Are you certain that it's due to FS corruption? I've had ext4 fail to boot due to silly errors like the last write being one hour into the future (some kind of time zone confusion), but no corruption at all.
  I'm not 100% sure: it booted up and dumped me into a single-user console, so I assumed it was a corrupt filesystem rather than something really stupid like that... fsck and then reboot made the machine boot.
8. Re:please... by gbjbaanb · 2010-05-14 10:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  regardless of why, I've never heard of that happen with an ext3 filesystem. Now imagine you're running a server, a trip to the datacentre to run fsck would be annoying.
9. Re:please... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  If casual users are morons without reading comprehension I don't give a damn. Go stay with your moron proof OS, whichever that is.
10. Re:please... by MrHanky · 2010-05-14 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty much it, although I never said 3 -- but you've got a good point. The distro should make sure the root FS is good and properly fsck'ed, and not rely on user input. I'm just pointing out that what the OP thought was a file system error might be something else.
11. Re:please... by MrHanky · 2010-05-14 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that sounds very much like what occured to me as well. If it is, it's not so much corruption as a silly demand to have the user run fsck instead of doing it automatically. I think ext4 is pretty robust when it comes to corruption these days.
12. Re:please... by drooling-dog · 2010-05-14 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  1. The file system has the power to brick your machine because of a clock setting
  So claims one person. I've never experienced anything like this myself, nor have I heard of it from anyone else until now.
  
  3. You wonder why casual users stay far away from Linux?
  Hate to be snarky, but... "casual users" with all of their viruses, malware, crapware, crippleware, etc. are welcome to stay as far away from Linux as they like (and can afford)...
13. Re:please... by Gothmolly · 2010-05-14 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it is, you just don't know it. In the middle of a series of writes, yank the power cord, and see how it handles it.
  
  --
  I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
14. Re:please... by X3J11 · 2010-05-14 11:15 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  1. The file system has the power to brick your machine because of a clock setting
  I do not think this word means what you think it means.
15. Re:please... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  I've never experienced anything like this myself, nor have I heard of it from anyone else until now.
  Timestamp checking is a feature in ext4 and is quite sensible.
16. Re:please... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  Casuals shouldn't have to deal with fucking morons like you writing filesystems that don't boot because you wrote a fucking hour into the future, fuckwit.
17. Re:please... by PRMan · 2010-05-14 11:42 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yeah. Not to troll, but if you want to be user-friendly like Windows, you can't dump out to a black screen and tell the user to run some command-line gobbledygook... every 3 months....
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
18. Re:please... by jibjibjib · 2010-05-14 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, if it's Windows the screen has to be blue, and the user just has to click the gobbledygook.
19. Re:please... by rubycodez · 2010-05-14 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  if it was recoverable by file system check it wasn't bricked. I would be happy to send you instructions to demonstrate what a "bricked" computer is like that you can experience your very own truly bricked system. And since I'm not an OS snob, I'll be delighted to help you achieve brickdom regardless of any version of Windows you happen to be running.
20. Re:please... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 12:26 · Score: 0
  
  ext4 takes security very seriously. One bad timestamp and it's the surge for your mobo and drives.
21. Re:please... by ls671 · 2010-05-14 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't you noticed I wrote: for my use cases
  My machines never shutdown due to the lack of power, if it ever occurs they would perform a clean shutdown anyway. This should be the case for most servers IMHO.
  I do not need journaling or any other type of FS overhead right now. If I move to journaling and/or copy on write FS. I will take it into account in my architecture and backup procedure to get the full benefit of it. I am not going to upgrade just for the fun of it.
  If it ain't broken, don't fix it. ;-)
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
22. Re:please... by Myopic · 2010-05-14 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Awesome... dueling coward trolls. You are both right and both wrong, by the way. You both have true and important, but incomplete points.
23. Re:please... by fishexe · 2010-05-14 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. Not to troll, but if you want to be user-friendly like Windows, you can't dump out to a black screen and tell the user to run some command-line gobbledygook... every 3 months....
  You're right. If you want it to be user-friendly like Windows you have to put the gobbledygook in a little gray window with buttons that don't respond when you click them.
  
  Also, make the gobbledygook as uniform as possible, so that nobody can ever tell the cause of the error. That should do quite nicely!
  
  --
  "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
24. Re:please... by fishexe · 2010-05-14 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  1. The file system has the power to brick your machine because of a clock setting
  I do not think this word means what you think it means.
  Inconceivable!
  
  --
  "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
25. Re:please... by fishexe · 2010-05-14 13:46 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  When 900 years old you reach, use ext2 you will not! Hmph!
  
  --
  "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
26. Re:please... by arkane1234 · 2010-05-14 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  WHEW... thank god for ILO...
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
27. Re:please... by afidel · 2010-05-14 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah until a brownout causes all 4 compressors on both independent AC units to short cycle and fail to come online over a holiday weekend when there's nobody within an hour of the datacenter (ask me how I know about that one) and your servers shutdown due to thermal overload. Even the best designed systems will run into unclean shutdown situations from time to time so I would always run with journaling on.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
28. Re:please... by walshy007 · 2010-05-14 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  This is more a thing of ubuntu than ext4, fedora has been running ext4 for years without issue, granted this is anecdotal with a small sample size of about 20 machines with constant use during that time.
29. Re:please... by nukem996 · 2010-05-14 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  What the hell are you doing to your systems? I'm running many systems with ext4 and I haven't had data loss on any of them. Are you just pulling the power out to see what happens?
30. Re:please... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 16:44 · Score: 0
  
  That's why you have remote iLO. VPN into your corp network from your computer at 3:00am, then use the iLO web interface to get to the console. Fsck, boot, back to bed. 2hrs OT. Cha-ching.
31. Re:please... by fustakrakich · 2010-05-14 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  ...a trip to the datacentre to run fsck would be annoying.
  I didn't know they allowed you to leave..
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
32. Re:please... by cthulhu11 · 2010-05-14 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yeah, love that HP ILO. Need to plug in a monitor+kbd for initial config, and you're hosed if there's a network issue. Sun's boxes have network interfaces to ILOM, but retain a usable serial console from which one can get a shell or do bare-metal setup.
33. Re:please... by Hal_Porter · 2010-05-14 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's not a bug - that's just that all applications misinterpret the POSIX specification. Ext4 correctly loses data in this case, correcting a bug in Ext3 where data was inadvertently preserved. This is the reason for Ext4's slightly higher performance over Ext3.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4#Delayed_allocation_and_potential_data_loss
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
34. Re:please... by badran · 2010-05-14 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  I can see that you met Murphy....
35. Re:please... by Ant+P. · 2010-05-15 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  I've had ext4 truncate files after a crash more than once, something that wasn't fixable with fsck. Ext3 never caused me data loss after a crash, nor have reiserfs or reiser4. If a journalling filesystem can't recover from a crash any better than FAT16 then what is it good for?
36. Re:please... by Macka · 2010-05-15 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  That's just the difference between a PC server .vs. a legacy *nix server. They're all like that, regardless of brand.
37. Re:please... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-15 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  I experienced issues multibooting linux with different clock settings (utc on/off or tz).
  It doesnt brick the machine, it dumps you to single user with ro root and asks you to do a fsck. You type fsck. It fixes the issue and you reboot.
  If someone calls it bricking well don't ever buy an iphone or upgrade firmware EVAR.
38. Re:please... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-15 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  I couldn't give less of a shit about his elitist "users don't deserve my file system" point.
39. Re:please... by Billly+Gates · 2010-05-15 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  Grub failed on me during an upgrade from 9.10 to 10.04.
  My guess is the grand parent had the same fate and blamed it on the file system. Grub went from 1.94 to 2.0 then back down to 1.94 after 10.04 came out due to the bug.
  I installed Fedore Core after that. A little bleeding edge and not ready for prime time if you ask me.
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
40. Re:please... by Woy · 2010-05-15 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I can't vouch for btrfs but i too have had 2 ext4 installs fail completely and stopped using it. Reiserfs it is for me, for now.
  
  --
  "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
41. Re:please... by ls671 · 2010-05-15 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  I control my own data center. If you don't, then you may have a point in using journaling to cover for the incompetency of the people you are dealing with. I believe in addressing the problem at the source.
  Anyway, even journaling file systems may suffer serious damage when "you pull the power cord off the plug" as you suggested. Journaling FS are not magic you know ;-)
  > Even the best designed systems will run into unclean
  > shutdown situations from time to time so I would
  > always run with journaling on.
  It depends what is time to time. If it is every 25 years, then I agree with you ! ;-) When that occurs, an fsck on ext2 will bring back the FS in a state that I would trust as much as a state reached from rebuilding from the journal, or pretty close enough. Seriously, it that case, I restore from a clean system image and backups/replicated data. You should do the same even if you use journaling. You seem to use journaling to address problems it can't really solve IMHO.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
42. Re:please... by Drinking+Bleach · 2010-05-15 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  Probably more due to the fact that ext2 cannot go that far out in time without rolling over to 1901 a few times.
43. Re:please... by afidel · 2010-05-15 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  You would seriously rebuild every system from backup just because of an unplanned shutdown? What kind of RTO do you have anyways?!? No business I know of is going to wait around while all of there servers are restored from tape or remote disk backup system just because of an unclean shutdown event. You're seriously starting to sound like some anti-journaled filesystem Luddite.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
44. Re:please... by ls671 · 2010-05-15 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, it frustrates me every time people don't take the time to read and analyze a post before replying...
  My answer it yes, once every 25 years on average; I will do just that but I test the procedure often enough.
  I have nothing against journaling FS. I merely stated that it doesn't bring much to my table. I also stated that IMHO, in your case, it brings you a false sense of confidence.
  I sure enjoy NTFS using journaling on my laptop ;-)
  Oh, and just in case you do not know; some (most?) systems keep some critical data in RAM. Now, talk about pulling the power cord...
  Pulling the power cord is unacceptable once you reach a certain level of data integrity requirements.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
45. Re:please... by gd2shoe · 2010-05-15 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's been a while since you've used Windows, apparently ;)
  (The "blue screen" is equivalent to a Kernel Panic=> full system lockup-> nothing to click on.)
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
46. Re:please... by mabhatter654 · 2010-05-15 17:13 · Score: 1
  
  You are correct, file system journaling is not a "save all" thing, but on systems where I have had improper shutdowns it's used to verify files are "known good" then I get a small list of files that are "suspect" and I need to look closely at. THEN I need a backup tape that has the files....or one of my other identical (OS, version, patch) systems if that saves time.
47. Re:please... by hardwarefreak · 2010-05-15 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  Btfrs already seems to be more stable than ext4: every PC I own with an ext4 partition has failed to boot at some point due to disk corruption
  This is what a ~100MB /boot partition, typically formatted with EXT2, is for. A boot environment doesn't need a journaled FS due to its small size and the fact that it's typically only written to when a new kernel is installed. Journal? WTF for?
  Oh, and use LILO, because Grub, in all it's glorious versions, sucks. Grub attempts to be a Swiss army knife of bootloaders for all archs, when all most people ever need is the spoon. I've been peeved since the day Debian switched to Grub as the default bootloader. Makes for problems for LILO users. I'll use LILO til it's pulled from my cold dead hands.
48. Re:please... by hardwarefreak · 2010-05-15 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  regardless of why, I've never heard of that happen with an ext3 filesystem. Now imagine you're running a server, a trip to the datacentre to run fsck would be annoying.
  Apparently you've never heard of IPMI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Platform_Management_Interface
  or
  iKVM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVM_switch
  Both created to solve this exact problem. Both work very well. IPMI is included in the standard config of many servers, and is thus "free". iKVM solutions can get very pricey.
49. Re:please... by soppsa · 2010-05-15 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  By datacenter, you mean small server room? AC units fail unexpectedly, all UPS and breakers require yearly (or more) maintenance to achieve 100% uptime, please give me a break. I'm not arguing ext2 isn't good enough for you, but other peoples incompetence is not the only reason why you can have datacenter issues. (Managed several large data-centers for many years)
  
  --
  Ogre Wedding Planners llc.
50. Re:please... by afidel · 2010-05-16 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  It might be unacceptable but it's inevitable that you will lose power, have a component hiccup, or have the kernel crash.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
51. Re:please... by cthulhu11 · 2010-05-16 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  No, they aren't. Like I said, Sun's x64 boxes have working serial consoles to the service processor. Right out of the box. No reason to ever attach a VGA monitor or a keyboard.
52. Re:please... by ToasterMonkey · 2010-05-16 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Damn, it frustrates me every time people don't take the time to read and analyze a post before replying...
  My answer it yes, once every 25 years on average; I will do just that but I test the procedure often enough.
  I have nothing against journaling FS. I merely stated that it doesn't bring much to my table. I also stated that IMHO, in your case, it brings you a false sense of confidence.
  Yah, there is a disconnect somewhere. The people who "don't take the time to read and analyze" your posts are wondering why, when the only commonly known good reason to disable journaling is to get a little extra performance, you haven't said something along the lines of "I needed the extra performance", or gave another reasonable explanation. At least that's my take. I mean, it's not one of those things you turn on when you think you need it.. you leave it on until you have a very good reason to turn it off. I suppose people might get defensive over this out of fear they might go to the next job to find FS journaling all disabled... just because.
53. Re:please... by ls671 · 2010-05-16 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on, my first post stated that I was "still on ext2" because those partitions were created before ext3 even existed. I do not run around disabling journaling as you suggest.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
54. Re:please... by ls671 · 2010-05-16 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  So you are saying that a small server room is more reliable than a big data center ?
  This is interesting from somebody who managed several large data centers.
  Hint about failing air conditioning units: Sensors to perform a clean shutdown when room temperature is too high exist on this planet, not only on the Stargate Universe space ship ;-)
  Hint about breakers and UPS: you need redundancy of the circuits and redundancy of the power supplies in the machines. You will then be able to meet a requirement of a failure once every 25 years. It is rare well designed redundant circuits all fail at the same time.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
55. Re:please... by ls671 · 2010-05-16 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  So, are you saying that it is impossible to meet a requirement to have that occur only once every 25 years ?
  All you need is redundancy of power supplies in the machines, redundancy of the power circuits and sensors to order a clean shutdown for whatever reason you may think of; room temperature to high, fire, smoke, etc.
  Granted, those come at a greater cost, so do not expect them in discount data centers.
  Additionally, if your kernel crashes, I suggest you fix your kernel instead, preferably before putting it on a production server.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
56. Re:please... by dullnev · 2010-05-16 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. If you want it to be user-friendly like Windows you have to put the gobbledygook in a little gray window with buttons that don't respond when you click them. Also, make the gobbledygook as uniform as possible, so that nobody can ever tell the cause of the error. That should do quite nicely!
  And label the buttons "Abort" and "Fail" so that nobody will know which button to press
57. Re:please... by RivieraKid · 2010-05-16 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's probably because the data wasn't flushed from cache when the crash occured. Ext4 writes file metadata pretty quickly (possibly even immediately), but the actual data is cached and not written until later.
  It's a known issue with the interaction of certain programs and the filesystem. Specifically, KDE had big issues with it because it would perform filesystem atomic operations on config files, but would neglect to flush the new data. If the system crashed, the atomic operations had completed but the data wadn't been flushed so all your config files were nicely truncated when you rebooted.
  You could argue both ways for whose fault it is, but at the end of the day, the application was making assumptions that the filesystem wasn't agreeing with so bad things happened.
  This has been mitigated by the default interval between flushing the cache being reduced from 15 to 5 minutes (I believe), but there's still a window of opportunity for the application to screw up if it makes the same assumption.
  To be safest, you have to flush the cache on every write while possibly changing the way the application handles files, and that would absolutely slaughter performance - effectively bypassing the cache altogether.
  Speed or data integrity - pick one.
  It sucks, but there you have it.
  
  --
  "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
58. Re:please... by RivieraKid · 2010-05-16 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, playing Devil's Advocate here - your original post didn't state that your ext2 partitions were legacy partitions and that the application is so mission critical that you can't afford the downtime to upgrade the filesystem, and that therefore you don't consider that journalling offers you any advantage.
  Your original post does indeed imply that you are specifically choosing ext2 (hence, effectively disabling journalling).
  You failed to explain the reason for using ext2 so people had no choice but to make assumptions.
  I've been there myself. I used to work in engineering for a multi-national investment bank. Even now, they have mission critical, customer facing applications running on Solaris 8 and 10 year old hardware that you can't even get approval to open the cabinet in the data center, never mind upgrade to something even remotely supported.
  A tiny bit of non-confidential background would have made all the difference.
  Just saying.
  
  --
  "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
Ubuntu... by ProdigyPuNk · 2010-05-14 09:39 · Score: 3, Funny

Making Debian look better with every release!
1. Re:Ubuntu... by DeadDecoy · 2010-05-14 09:50 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yeah, stupid ubuntu for trying to incorporate usability features into Linux. How's a linux user supposed to retain their air of smug supperiority if the average schmoe can install it. At least I have my HC11 microcontroller and assembly code to fall back on!
2. Re:Ubuntu... by Lord+Ender · 2010-05-14 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  You can keep your ugly old broad. Me, I want something young and fresh, even if she's a little loopy.
  
  --
  A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
3. Re:Ubuntu... by ArsonSmith · 2010-05-14 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's OK, now that someone leaked this top secret info, Ubuntu will back pedal, scrub the site of any mention of btrfs and then go back to the normal use of EXT$nextver.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
4. Re:Ubuntu... by Tumbleweed · 2010-05-14 10:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You can keep your ugly old broad. Me, I want something young and fresh, even if she's a little loopy.
  Loopy chicks fsck better.
5. Re:Ubuntu... by EyelessFade · 2010-05-14 10:09 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You mean unstable, not ready for mainstream.
6. Re:Ubuntu... by mangu · 2010-05-14 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't need the help of some shoddy "Linux For Dummies" OS based on it to make it look better.
  You surely mean some shoddy "GNU/Linux for Dummies"
7. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, but the older one knows how to get it done, while the loopy one just sits there with a blank stare...gets to be irritating to have to explain yourself over and over how to 'optimally' fsck things...
8. Re:Ubuntu... by jd · 2010-05-14 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure the microcontroller is ready for mainstream. Not entirely sure about the rest. Well, if Windows 95/98 defined what the mainstream would accept, then I guess just about any hand-turned assembly could be considered mainstream.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
9. Re:Ubuntu... by PopeRatzo · 2010-05-14 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Making Debian look better with every release!
  I don't know, there's been an Ubuntu machine in my music studio running mission critical applications for half a decade, and every time there's a new release, I install the new OS. Not once have I had to revert to the previous Ubuntu release.
  When I first decided that Linux had a place in my studio, for things like serving up samples, off-loading real-time effects processing chores (using ReaMote in Cockos Reaper) and rendering masters, I originally decided to use Debian, but I guess I'm just not smart enough, because I could never get it configured the way I wanted. From my first attempt with Ubuntu Studio, I had success.
  I'm glad there's a distro like Ubuntu for people like me. I know I don't get any coupons for nerd heaven for choosing it over Debian, but I sure get a lot of work done with it. Since 2004 there's been Windows, OSX and Linux running in my little project space, and each one gives me something the others don't (or won't).
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
10. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 11:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, stupid ubuntu for trying to incorporate usability features into Linux. How's a linux user supposed to retain their air of smug supperiority if the average schmoe can install it. At least I have my HC11 microcontroller and assembly code to fall back on!
  I'm sure it's just a typo, but just to clarify: *Kubuntu* is trying to incorporate usability features into Linux. Ubuntu is for the smug superiority set (Hey everyone! We use the Apple OS6 HIG!)
11. Re:Ubuntu... by oatworm · 2010-05-14 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure it's just a typo, but just to clarify: *OpenSUSE* is trying to incorporate usability features into Linux. Kubuntu is for the smug superiority set that don't realize there are actually good KDE-based distributions out there.
12. Re:Ubuntu... by Arker · 2010-05-14 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  You *must* have meant to type slackware...
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
13. Re:Ubuntu... by zach_the_lizard · 2010-05-14 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Just point them to the man pages, and they'll have all the command line flags figured out in no time. Now, figuring THEM out, on the other hand....
  
  --
  SSC
14. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah really. Ubuntu is less stable than even Debian "unstable" (currently my Xvideo is broken) and frequently has broken packages if you go outside the mainstream (into "Universe"). e.g. 1, prboom has been broken in Ubuntu for more than one release. e.g. 2, this same Remnant guy decided that ALL fsck's should be skipped at boot on battery mode to work-around ext2/3's time consuming fsck every 25 mounts... completely breaking users with jfs or other filesystems that require a fsck after unclean shutdown.
15. Re:Ubuntu... by rubycodez · 2010-05-14 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  I can second that.
  I'm a hard core Unix admin and systems programmer with over 25 years experience, and I can vouch that for desktop use, Ubuntu puts the polish on its 95%+ Debian core. Sure, I can make Debian function as a desktop, but always with every released version of Debian it requires my Unix experience to get everything to work.
  Debian is awesome for servers. But I'm using Ubuntu LTS on my laptop, home and work desktop.
16. Re:Ubuntu... by rubycodez · 2010-05-14 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Following the LTS path my Ubuntu is quite stable, thank you very much. Starting my fifth year with it as desktop.
17. Re:Ubuntu... by dstar · 2010-05-14 12:39 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  'Usability'? As far as I can tell, Ubuntu doesn't give a damn about usability, or they wouldn't have broken wireless on *both* the last two releases (10.04, anyone using a rt2870 based card on a WPA2 network was out of luck, 9.10, anyone using a WPA2 network period (or was that WPA at all? I can't remember) was out of luck, because the version of NetworkManager forcibly installed (never mind that the copy of wicd I had installed worked fine, Ubuntu knew what I needed better than I did, so it helpfully uninstalled it) couldn't handle it).
  I've run Debian *unstable* on my server for the last decade or so, and I've never had this kind of problem.
18. Re:Ubuntu... by Requiem18th · 2010-05-14 13:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ubuntu won't install some poorly tested alpha quality file system until the next LTS and viceversa, a filesystem can't make it into ubuntu unless its buggy enough to get into the LTS a week after feature freeze.
  
  --
  But... the future refused to change.
19. Re:Ubuntu... by CAIMLAS · 2010-05-14 13:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  How's a linux user supposed to retain their air of smug supperiority if the average schmoe can install it.
  Become a FreeBSD user, of course. Or was that a rhetorical question? Have you ever met a FreeBSD user?
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
20. Re:Ubuntu... by fishexe · 2010-05-14 13:47 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You can keep your ugly old broad. Me, I want something young and fresh, even if she's a little loopy.
  Loopy chicks fsck better.
  And you can mount them more times in a row. Loopback mounting, even.
  
  --
  "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
21. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 14:44 · Score: 0
  
  They ought to backpedal and then get back to work and make sure that everything they throw over the transom *works*.
  Case in point: GRUB2. Ubuntu made it the default bootloader for Lucid Lynx (10.04 LTS), but apparently no one noticed that it doesn't chainload to a GRUB Legacy (0.97) MBR on a multiple-spindle system, because it doesn't size the disks properly. It's a nightmare to configure, it's not properly documented and there are number of serious bugs listed on the GNU GRUB2 web pages. But, Ubuntu shipped it anyway.
  Btrfs is known to be still in development and is known to have some serious bugs, serious enough that users shouldn't bet their data on it, yet Ubuntu wants to ship it as the default filesystem?
  Doing so would make the Pulseaudio debacle on Fedora 11 look like a Sunday School picnic by comparison.
22. Re:Ubuntu... by arkane1234 · 2010-05-14 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, stupid ubuntu for trying to incorporate usability features into Linux.
  Makes me think you have this idea that all of your important data should be on a ReiserFS file system, for some reason...
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
23. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever met a FreeBSD user?
  I don't like Cheetos and have a pathological fear of basements, so that would be a "no".
24. Re:Ubuntu... by Pence128 · 2010-05-14 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so I'm not the only one who looked at GRUB2 and thought "what the fuck is this shit?"
  
  --
  404: sig not found.
25. Re:Ubuntu... by kimvette · 2010-05-14 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Riiight. Even hardcore sysadmins will choose Ubuntu or OpenSUSE to avoid having to spend eleventy-teen days configuring the system to get the REAL work done.
  Debian is fine if you run a Pentium III still, Slackware is perfect for a masochist, oh, and Gentoo is good for people who like to LOOK busy but never actually get anything done!
  Seriously though; distros like Ubuntu (and variants), OpenSUSE, and even Mandriva and Fedora get the drudgery of setting up a basic system out of the way for you. If you've set up slackware once, you've set it up a hundred times. Ditto for Debian, Gentoo, etc. - they are just too much work that is actually a distraction from real productivity. Need to deploy a desktop or a LAMP server? Just pick $DISTRO_OF_CHOICE and install it, and be getting actual work done within an hour.
  Those distros certainly have their place(s) but honestly, those distros don't belong on the desktop and it's the kind of attitude you are displaying that has held F/OSS solutions back for so long; that, and the "RTFM, n00b!" type folks.
  
  --
  The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
26. Re:Ubuntu... by dudpixel · 2010-05-14 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  How's a linux user supposed to retain their air of smug supperiority if the average schmoe can install it.
  Become a FreeBSD user, of course. Or was that a rhetorical question? Have you ever met a FreeBSD user?
  I've met a few BSD users and they all seem to fit the above description. :P
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
27. Re:Ubuntu... by geminidomino · 2010-05-14 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so I'm not the only one who looked at GRUB2 and thought "what the fuck is this shit?"
  Nope.
  After looking at Grub 2, Network Manager, and Pulseaudio, my desktop is now running Lenny (Until I can find something better. Maybe when the next FC comes out, I'll try it...).
28. Re:Ubuntu... by Jaxoreth · 2010-05-14 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if Windows 95/98 defined what the mainstream would accept, then I guess just about any hand-turned assembly could be considered mainstream.
  How primitive. Real hackers use a lathe.
  
  --
  In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
29. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 22:17 · Score: 0
  
  I mostly sign what you said. The problem with Ubuntu is that in exchange for smoothing out the rough edges in Debian, you often get Ubuntu specific bugs: It's a tradeoff between needing unix experience or Ubuntu experience...
30. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 22:18 · Score: 0
  
  Strange, I must be doing something wrong. Here I am, running Ubuntu 9.10 on a WPA2 network, browsing slashdot. Really weird.
31. Re:Ubuntu... by badran · 2010-05-14 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  So now instead of just editing one file and running one command, you have to go through multiple commands and and still not get a sane setup......
32. Re:Ubuntu... by AigariusDebian · 2010-05-15 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  There is barely any difference between Ubuntu and Debian on a server.
33. Re:Ubuntu... by AigariusDebian · 2010-05-15 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  GRUB2 I am not deeply impressed about, but it does make it so that my computer switches to native resolution immediately and never switches to anything else, so there is no annoying flicker during boot. Also, they say that support for newer filesystems on root/boot partitions (such as btrfs) is easier to ass in GRUB2.
  However NetworkManager and PulseAudio are a godsend. NetworkManager works like a charm - simplifying all that crazy stuff with juggling multiple wireless access points in different locations, each with their own network settings and wireless encryption setting. I set it up once per location and now I can just roam and have my network just work. And PulseAudio is great - I can play multiple audio streams and adjust volume for every application separately and also stream sound over the network with by just checking two boxes.
  Ubuntu provides vision. They don't have to always be right, they just need to walk forward toward a goal they consider worthy and see if enough people go with them.
34. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-15 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  And I'm running 10.04 with a rt2870 based card on a WPA2 network... I guess a few of us are doing something wrong...
35. Re:Ubuntu... by CAIMLAS · 2010-05-15 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Windows (and Linux) users exhibit it too; the degree of smugness seems to be proportionate to the degree of difficulty and level of esoterica: the harder and less common it is, the more smugness.
  Windows users who can reinstall Windows have gotten significantly less smug in the last couple years on account of Windows 7, I've noticed. No longer is a reinstall an all-day affair: it's 20 minutes from a fast flash drive and one or two clicks. Grandma can do it with a little coaching. Contrast this to 10 years ago, when it was an exercise in black magic.
  The more competent (and, by proxy, more smug) Windows users have since moved to Ubuntu and OS X: they can still have their elitist superiority through the oddity of "look what I can do"/"look what I have". Linux zealots have either moved on to other things (*BSD, OS X) to preserve their smugness and elitism or they've matured to adulthood. It's a vicious circle of life.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
36. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-15 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  No Windows user moves to OS X out of competence.
37. Re:Ubuntu... by tixxit · 2010-05-15 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  I used 8.04 at work for the past 2 years (desktop + dev. server). I don't recall any stability issues... Hrm. During 1 long stretch where I never updated the OS (terrible, I know) I got an uptime of 6 months. I finally caved an applied a kernel update and had to restart. Never froze or crashed and the services I was running were pretty solid.
38. Re:Ubuntu... by gd2shoe · 2010-05-15 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Uhmm... I don't think they were trying to be sarcastic...
  (Granted, one can certainly get less usable than Slackware.)
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
39. Re:Ubuntu... by gd2shoe · 2010-05-15 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ditto for Debian... - they are just too much work that is actually a distraction from real productivity
  And what does Ubuntu, et al., do for you that makes setting up a server so much faster than Debian? Your comparison of Slackware and Gentoo to Debian makes me think that you've not touched Debian in many, many years.
  (I use Debian on the desktop regularly. I don't recommend Linux on the desktop to average users at all. I keep waiting for it to actually be ready. We were making progress at one point, but Ubuntu is stuck on Gnome, and KDE is taking steps backwards.)
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
40. Re:Ubuntu... by Hurricane78 · 2010-05-15 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  I’m sorry, but your “joke” is my exact point: Ubuntu is the exact same thing, as doing the following to education:
  “If people are too dumb, just make the tests simpler and teach them less.” Or for anything in general: “If people are too dumb, make the system less powerful”
  And what happens with humans, when you make things simpler? Nature invents better idiots. So your Gaussian distribution curves goes down. And then teams like Ubuntu or Microsoft typically try to appeal to that lower end of that new curve again, until...
  Well, I guess you can see the problem now.
  The problem is that they only try to appeal to the lower end, at the expense of everybody else. Especially the higher end. And especially in efficiency.
  And why? Because of the loud idiot syndrome: Dumb people are more sure of themselves, because they don’t realize all the points where they could be wrong. So they are louder.
  But I’m not saying we should hurt or punish those with less intelligence. Not even remotely. I’m saying: Treat everyone fairly. And I’m saying that the whole thing is stupid, since there is no need to make compromises in the first places. If the Ubuntu team would use their brain, they could make it optimal for everyone, instead of only the idiots.
  It’s sad that it becomes harder and harder to use Ubuntu, because you have to tune your brain down more and more, to use it... in a slower and slower (less efficient) way... :/
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
41. Re:Ubuntu... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-05-15 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever met a FreeBSD user?
  Wait, who's the other guy? ~
42. Re:Ubuntu... by LordLimecat · 2010-05-15 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be implying that ext4 hasnt been in ubuntu until now. In fact, it was included since exactly halfway between the previous LTS and the current one (ie, 9.04), and has been the default for ubuntu since last release.
  
  And while your point (about alpha software), though hyperbolic (really only PulseAudio deserves THAT label), there is some truth to it. However, I thought the whole point of Ubuntu is that is A) focused on user experience first, B) cutting edge second, and C) Stability third. If you want it to be stable, use debian. I rather like that they push cutting edge stuff; if, in 3 years, Ubuntu were to fade into obscurity, it would have done far more good for the Linux world by being bleeding edge by bringing testers to unstable code, and helping it to get rapidly polished. I know it isnt alone in this regard, but they are a major player and have a huge impact in forcibly pushing the evolution of software along.
43. Re:Ubuntu... by Arker · 2010-05-15 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  Have yet to see any other distro beat it, to be honest.
  Sure, fancier installers abound, but that doesnt make them more usable.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
44. Re:Ubuntu... by Tacvek · 2010-05-15 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I know several Windows users who were also Part time GNU/Linux users who have moved to OS X, so they can have something that is easier to use than Windows or a well configured Linux box, for casual use, but also has the full power of a Unix, for serious use.
  Finally even if OS X becomes mainstream, because of the Reality Distortion Field, everybody gets to feel smug.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
45. Re:Ubuntu... by soppsa · 2010-05-15 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  Um.... right. Keep on blindly hating Apple...
  
  --
  Ogre Wedding Planners llc.
46. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-16 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  Well it's a good thing people like you aren't in charge of reviewing the software, because as far as you can tell isn't very far at all. Clearly _you_ had some wireless issues, but Ubuntu didn't break wireless on either release. WPA2 enterprise using a wireless n driver works in 9.04, 9.10, and 10.04 all out of the box with no additional drivers needed. And I'm definitely not the only one having these results; I help out in the forums and IRC channels as well and wireless just isn't the big problem it used to be. At this point it's waiting for all the wireless chipset mfg's to stop making such shitty drivers, and for ignorant users such as yourself to learn where to point the blame before going off on a rant about it.
47. Re:Ubuntu... by ToasterMonkey · 2010-05-16 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  'Usability'? As far as I can tell, Ubuntu doesn't give a damn about usability, or they wouldn't have broken wireless on *both* the last two releases
  That's a whole different scope of usability, a general QA problem. I think it's unfair to say they don't give a damn about usability because their release process sucks. It's fair to criticize them for not fixing more core problems before usability ones though.
  Car examples: Wheels falling off my car is well beyond being a usability issue. Placement of the turn signals is a usability concern.
48. Re:Ubuntu... by Knitebane · 2010-05-16 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, who's the other guy? ~
  That would be me. Here's a nickel, kid. Buy yourself a real operating system.
  
  --
  "...history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi
49. Re:Ubuntu... by geminidomino · 2010-05-16 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  However NetworkManager and PulseAudio are a godsend. NetworkManager works like a charm - simplifying all that crazy stuff with juggling multiple wireless access points in different locations, each with their own network settings and wireless encryption setting. I set it up once per location and now I can just roam and have my network just work. And PulseAudio is great - I can play multiple audio streams and adjust volume for every application separately and also stream sound over the network with by just checking two boxes.
  Then you are one of the folks who didn't get bitten by the issues with them. The past two releases have had wireless issues with Network Manager, and I've had Pulseaudio issues since they introduced it.
  
  Ubuntu provides vision. They don't have to always be right, they just need to walk forward toward a goal they consider worthy and see if enough people go with them.
  The more they put "vision" ahead of "practicality," as in "making the damn thing work," the fewer people will go with them. They are not Apple, and they need to lose the delusion that they are.
50. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-16 19:46 · Score: 0
  
  Ubuntu enjoys installing unstable software on their releases.
  Then they can use their users as testers.
51. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-17 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Strawman. And you know it, don't you.
52. Re:Ubuntu... by DeadDecoy · 2010-05-17 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, but you're making the erroneous assumption that things are made simpler or easier for the sake of appealing to the lowest common denominator. Another point of view, is that people want simpler tools for the sake of performing a few common and specific tasks. Not, everyone has the time to fiddle around with installing sound drivers from source. They may just want to play some music while their attention is focused on other tasks. The computer can be a tool to use and not a project in and off itself. Just look at the ipad, kindle, or various mp3 players. They are essentially gimped down computers that perform a few tasks very well. And, for that they are popular.
  
  In fact, your reply kinda drives home my point. Some users believe that because they endured some trail-by-fire, like hacking through a linux install for over a day, are somehow superior in intelligence to the rest of the masses, that any efforts make those tasks easier are simply appealing to dumb people. Because cearly, only a select few can do what you've done and you're special. Not everyone is a programmer, artist, engineer, or clinician. Their interactions with and needs of a computer will necissarily be different. This doesn't mean that ubuntu is cludgey or that it's users are dumb, just that it serves a different audience.
  
  You should keep in mind that a computer is only as fast as the user+computer. If a computer performs blindingly fast, but has a crappy interface, it will never be used and never be useful. E.g. if you had to use a computer in russian, or some other language you weren't immediately familiar with, you'd bemoan having to learn another language just to write an email, and you'd create or use something else. In conclusion, Ubuntu is sufficient for some people and your comments are just downright rude for making assumptions about them.
53. Re:Ubuntu... by sjames · 2010-05-17 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  I met one once. I even took him up on his offer of a shell account on his colo box :-)
54. Re:Ubuntu... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-22 18:40 · Score: 0
  
  If you want usability you don't go with Ubuntu.I think you got that mixed up with fallibility.
ZFS comparison by GoNINzo · 2010-05-14 09:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Alternately, you could consider using ZFS if you can live with the uncertainty of the opensolaris project. The major plus is that all the functionality is already there.

ZFS has all the features that btrfs hopes to achieve already, plus major speed increases when using an SSD drive. When you have a read taking place in .3 ms instead of 9 ms, the speed increases are incredible.

My hope is that ZFS can be salvaged after Oracle decides what to do with the opensolaris project. If it's on linux, even better.

--
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
1. Re:ZFS comparison by EvanED · 2010-05-14 09:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Alternately, you could consider using ZFS if you can live with the uncertainty of the opensolaris project. The major plus is that all the functionality is already there.
  Don't forget that FreeBSD has a native implementation of ZFS as well. (You can also get ZFS for FUSE, but as such it's probably not suited for a main file system.)
2. Re:ZFS comparison by phoenix_rizzen · 2010-05-14 09:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  ZFS is also available in FreeBSD 7.0 and later. It's even marked as "production quality" in FreeBSD 8.0 and later.
  It's a few versions behind (ZFSv14) OpenSolaris (ZFSv24), but on par with Solaris 10 (ZFSv15). FreeBSD 8.1 should have ZFSv15 in it by the time it's released this summer. And there's work ongoing to bring ZFSv20-something into 9.0.
3. Re:ZFS comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  Hopefully it will become abandoned, but not holding my breath. Wouldn't it be nice if Linux, Microsoft, and Apple used ZFS as their native file system in future OS builds?
4. Re:ZFS comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  ZFS on linux is not going to happen. technically no problem, but the licenses don't allow to link it into the kernel, so you have to use fuse which is just slow as hell. stupid licenses (one way or another...)
5. Re:ZFS comparison by 0100010001010011 · 2010-05-14 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  8.0 and OpenSolaris both support booting from ZFS. (Using the latest Grub, which the OpenSolaris contributed the ZFS.mod).
  Having lost one of my mirrored boot drives and replacing it without a hiccup was nothing short of amazing. ZFS is very easy to use from the command line.
  After fighting with Xen on Linux (and the billion different config instructions.). I finally just installed it in OpenSolaris and was done with it. (It's as simple as an 'apt-get' in debian).
  My home server is a quad core CPU with 8GB of ram running Windows7 (PVM) and Debian64 (DomU) in Xen.
  I like my linux machines, but I love my OpenSolaris server.
6. Re:ZFS comparison by jtosburn · 2010-05-14 10:12 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I think you don't give quite enough credit to btrfs; it isn't merely a johnny-come-lately, but rather another step forward in filesystem evolution. Try here for a good article on btrfs, by one of the zfs developers, Valerie Aurora. If you like, just skip to the section entitled "btrfs: A brief comparison with ZFS", one flamebait bit of which is this: "In my opinion, the basic architecture of btrfs is more suitable to storage than that of ZFS."
  With that said, no one thinks it's ready for critical data storage yet.
7. Re:ZFS comparison by icebraining · 2010-05-14 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  In the words of Danese Cooper, who is no longer with Sun, one of the reasons for basing the CDDL on the Mozilla license was that the Mozilla license is GPL-incompatible. Cooper stated, at the 6th annual Debian conference, that the engineers who had written the Solaris kernel requested that the license of OpenSolaris be GPL-incompatible. "Mozilla was selected partially because it is GPL incompatible. That was part of the design when they released OpenSolaris. [...] the engineers who wrote Solaris [...] had some biases about how it should be released, and you have to respect that"
  http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
8. Re:ZFS comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Btrfs has one feature that ZFS has had on its "to-do" list for , what, six years now? Removing an empty disk from the pool.
9. Re:ZFS comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  ...except it's not production quality. Please skim the past 6-8 months of posts to the freebsd-fs and freebsd-stable lists: you'll be surprised at the number of error reports.
  Booting from a ZFS pool on FreeBSD is also somewhat broken; users are still reporting issues with it, and booting from raidz still doesn't appear possible. Supposedly booting from a ZFS mirror works.
  Simply put: if you want to use ZFS and expect stability, run OpenSolaris or Solaris 10.
10. Re:ZFS comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  Opensolaris has horrible driver support, and the 32-bit version doesn't support drives >1TB (yes, really). I can't run it natively because of my Marvell SATA controller so I was running it in Virtualbox (32-bit since I don't have hardware 64-bit virtualization) for ZFS, but then when I got 2TB drives it refused to work with them.
  I switched to FreeBSD and have managed to work out some initial wrinkles and ZFS seems pretty solid now.
  Also, Opensolaris is no longer providing security updates except to paying users, so I strongly recommend everyone wanting to try ZFS goes straight to FreeBSD 8.
11. Re:ZFS comparison by ducomputergeek · 2010-05-14 12:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Or you can run FreeBSD 8, which has ZFS and has had DTrace for a while now.
  
  --
  "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
12. Re:ZFS comparison by CAIMLAS · 2010-05-14 13:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Despite FreeBSD now having version 13 implementation of ZFS in 7.3 and 8.0 RELEASE, it's still a complete gongshow. (I'd argue that's largely the case with FreeBSD methods in general - lacking "best practices" and all that, but I'm sure I'd get flamed.)
  In the 7.x releases, there's support for ZFS. It works, mostly, with some cryptic kernel loader configuration changes to set memory allocation and the like - provided you've got at least 4GB of RAM. Otherwise, expect instability and file loss.
  In 8.0 RELEASE, this situation has been much improved. Except there's still no ability to boot from ZFS directly, and so you're stuck with a half-assed kludge. The workable technique of booting from USB devices in 7.x no longer is on account of the "new and improved" USB stack which uh, isn't improved on account of it barely ever working properly (storage doesn't get recognized, devices falling off the bus, little stuff). Oh yeah, and the "needs 4GB of RAM, or else" issue is still there, though in light of everything else is relatively minor.
  
  --
  ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
13. Re:ZFS comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 15:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  FreeBSD 8-STABLE is now at zfs pool version 14 and you can now boot from zfs directly if you wish so. I don't because, well I use full disk encryption with geli so I need a separate boot partition anyway. And though my laptop indeed have 4GB of memory, I still have 2.5GB free after a few hours of using Gnome, Firefox, Thunderbird, PostgreSQL and a bunch of xterm... Although I use usb keys, webcam, mouse, printer, I don't have any usb related problems so I guess I'm just lucky.
  All in all, it beats the crap out of using Linux with ext2/3/4 and LVM. Try to use snapshots on LVM and you'll quickly find why it's a bad idea. The good news is that with btrfs, Linux may catch up to where FreeBSD is now in 2-3 years time.
  Oh, by the way, as an added bonus you completely avoid the clusterfuck of alsa/pulseaudio...
14. Re:ZFS comparison by GiMP · 2010-05-14 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  Could we get some references in regard to problems with ZFS on FreeBSD with less than 4GB of RAM? Or at least, some personal experience or explanation for this statement? Preferably in regard to version 8, as arguably, anyone with problems on 7.x could "simply" upgrade.
  The ZFS Tuning Guide for FreeBSD indicates, simply, that one should have at least 1GB of RAM.
15. Re:ZFS comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 17:29 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  ZFS v14 is supported in 8.0-STABLE.
  The 4GB "requirement" for things to run smooth also exists in OpenSolaris; ZFS creators said on an ACM interview a while back they weren't expecting that 64 bit computing would take several years to become mainstream, ZFS is designed to be run with lots of memory and in 64 bit, regardless the underlying operating system. That said, you can always adjust and/or disable the arc cache - I have FreeBSD ZFS fileservers running on i386 with 2G, without any major issues. Btw, I think that the arc cache is disabled by default
  I do agree that there is no easy way to do root-on-zfs on FreeBSD, but it's not like it won't run. The sysinstall is in desperate need of a major update (no geom raid support, no zfs support, no gpt support), but you CAN boot 8.0-STABLE to zfs directly. With 8.0-RELEASE, the zfs-aware bootloader wasn't installed by default, but meanwhile that was changed. Yes, the install process is mostly manual, but it's not like there is no documentation, and the process itself should be straightforward to any seasoned unix administrator.
16. Re:ZFS comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 17:33 · Score: 0
  
  Well, then that opinion doesn't really seem very worthwhile, since I have terabytes of Solaris ZFS in production, and no real problems with it, and I couldn't find a single person I know who's even thinking about using btrfs. The idea that btrfs is somehow "better" in it's weakly tested state seems, frankly, partisan.
  It's funny, some Linux developers producing a GPL copy of ZFS, despite all the bitching and moaning about how bad Solaris is from the Linux camp over the years?
  I have had vendor salesmen tell me I didn't need feature X, until they had it for sale, and then of course they wanted me to know that I couldn't live without their new version of product Y. That's how this btrfs thing feels.
17. Re:ZFS comparison by NormalVisual · 2010-05-14 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  After fighting with Xen on Linux (and the billion different config instructions.). I finally just installed it in OpenSolaris and was done with it. (It's as simple as an 'apt-get' in debian).
  
  And Xen's totally unavailable in FreeBSD. Sure, you can finally run a FreeBSD guest, but if you want a Xen host on ZFS, OpenSolaris is the only game in town.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
18. Re:ZFS comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 18:55 · Score: 0
  
  > ZFS has all the features that btrfs hopes to achieve already
  No.
  Btrfs can be resized online _both ways_. ZFS cannot be shrunk.
  I know that... All my filesystems on my home and work machine (not on servers though) have been btrfs for more than three months now, and I have used online shrinking quite a lot. btrfs and LVM, the ultimate storage flexibility solution :p
19. Re:ZFS comparison by geminidomino · 2010-05-14 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  FreeBSD devs are assholes. Why would they call their development trunk 'stable'?
  When did this happen? Back when I was a net admin and FBSD was my OS of choice, the dev trunk was X-CURRENT and X-STABLE was what you tracked for security updates and the like.
20. Re:ZFS comparison by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 23:50 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I'm running a 4TB zpool on FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE with 1.5GB ram on x86 (32-bit). I've tweaked some kernel parameters but it's stable.
21. Re:ZFS comparison by Rich0 · 2010-05-15 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny, some Linux developers producing a GPL copy of ZFS, despite all the bitching and moaning about how bad Solaris is from the Linux camp over the years?
  Well, perhaps you should consider that not all linux devs speak with one voice?
  I've been a fan of zfs for the start, and would be running it but for the licensing issues.
  I'm happy to have btrfs as an option, and I'm glad to see that they have features that I wanted which zfs could never offer (shrinking zpools, for one - I'd be running xfs but for the fact that it can't be shrunk).
  Agreed that I'm not sure I'm ready to run btrfs quite yet. I'd be happy to see it in ubuntu though - let them work out the bugs... :)
22. Re:ZFS comparison by Zemplar · 2010-05-15 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Or you can run FreeBSD 8, which has ZFS and has had DTrace for a while now.
  I know this is Slashdot, but have these Linux zealots ever tried FreeBSD? If they had, I bet there would be a ton less "dying" or "dead" jokes.
  
  Sure, FreeBSD doesn't have the marketing, but it's got the features.
  
  Okay, Linux fanbois, light me up.
23. Re:ZFS comparison by Bryan3000000 · 2010-05-18 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Try ZFS-Fuse. It's stable and works for me every bit as well as ZFS on OpenSolaris or Nexenta. Only a couple of features missing, like iSCSI property, and nfsshare property is being tested. NFS sharing can still be done, just not with the ZFS property quite yet - this might be possible with iSCSI.
  
  Shrinking would be better, but I keep flexibility in my pools by using mirroring rather than raidz. Mirrors can be detached and formed into a smaller pool, then data copied to it (just make sure you have a backup before detaching mirrors from a pool, but you should already).
  
  I use 9.10 with ZFS-Fuse and share via AFP with netatalk for my Macs. This works perfectly, and has finally become easy to set up and get working properly. All the dependencies should be good in 10.04, and I only had to manually grab later versions of two packages for 9.10.
features & performance by aintnostranger · 2010-05-14 09:42 · Score: 1

how well does it compare to filesystems like ZFS and reiser 4 feature-wise and performance-wise ?
1. Re:features & performance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 09:53 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You can't compare it to Reiser4. Reiser just kills everything out there.
2. Re:features & performance by mujadaddy · 2010-05-14 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Too soon.
  
  --
  Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
  "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
3. Re:features & performance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:01 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Reiser is a killer FS, but you have to keep your eyes on it...it totally chokes under certain conditions, with the result being your system gets locked up.
4. Re:features & performance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  many answers to your questions are here -> http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/ , benchmarking is probably still premature though
5. Re:features & performance by XCondE · 2010-05-14 10:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Really? Are we still doing that?
6. Re:features & performance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 12:22 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  But sometimes that's the only way to get it to tell you the location of a lost file.
7. Re:features & performance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  Really? Are we still doing that?
  Yes, yes we are. Hans Reiser can suck a cock for taking his childrens' mother's life, and deserves to be shamed, humiliated, made fun of, and most deservedly, pounded in the ass for the rest of his life on a daily basis.
  fuck him
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reiser_mug.jpg
  /clear enough?
8. Re:features & performance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 14:23 · Score: 0
  
  Including his wife
9. Re:features & performance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 16:14 · Score: 0
  
  Haha, you kill!
10. Re:features & performance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  Too soon.
  4 years is too soon? Since when?
11. Re:features & performance by mabinogi · 2010-05-14 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  it's never too soon!
  
  --
  Advanced users are users too!
12. Re:features & performance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-15 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  What's it to you - were you his boyfriend or something? You seem personally aggrieved.
13. Re:features & performance by rawler · 2010-05-15 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  I swear. One day there will be a FS-related post on slashdot WITHOUT a Reiser-joke.
  That will mark the beginning of the apocalypse.
14. Re:features & performance by hardwarefreak · 2010-05-15 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  I swear. One day there will be a FS-related post on slashdot WITHOUT a Reiser-joke.
  Not today.
  How many Russian brides does it take to kill a filesystem?
It hasn't been ruled out, but it is ruled unlikely by pwagland · 2010-05-14 09:47 · Score: 4, Informative

From the article:

It’s a tough gauntlet, and it would only made with the knowledge that production servers and desktops can be run on Lucid as a fully supported version of Ubuntu at the same time. I’d give it a 1-in-5 chance.
There are quite a few pre-conditions for it to be made alpha, so it is not as likely as the summary makes it out to be.
Encryption? by dattaway · 2010-05-14 09:49 · Score: 1

Will btrfs have it or not? Stolen laptops want to know.
1. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:02 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's on the TODO list apparently:
  http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2009/06/conversation-chris-mason-btrfs-next-generation-file-system-linux
2. Re:Encryption? by palegray.net · 2010-05-14 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  Why wouldn't you just do your encryption at the block device level using dm-crypt? Then it doesn't matter what filesystem you're using.
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
3. Re:Encryption? by timeOday · 2010-05-14 10:31 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think hardware full disk encryption is the only way to go. There's no performance penalty and it's transparent to the OS (which is great for those of us who multiboot). Our experience with PGP and Credant has been horrible, making some laptops unusably slow. Is dm-crypt that much better?
4. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  use dmcrypt. it's fs agnostic.
5. Re:Encryption? by Cley+Faye · 2010-05-14 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I can tell, dm-crypt doesn't make my laptop unusably slow. I didn't run performance test on it, but in a day to day usage I can't notice a difference in performance since I've set full disk encryption with it.
6. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  I've used full-disk encryption on Linux with ext4 + LVM + dm-crypt. I'd say that the performance hit is rather negligible for regular desktop usage. However just creating a snapshot in LVM does slow down the system noticeably and there are other annoying issues associated with LVM snapshots.
  This is the reason I switched to FreeBSD with full disk encryption on my laptop (ZFS+geli). It's much more flexible and easier to use. I'd say that the performance is also better in general (and no visible impact when using snapshots). At this point I wouldn't go back to Linux (at least not until BTRFS matures and becomes widely used and tested).
7. Re:Encryption? by palegray.net · 2010-05-14 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  You can probably buy a crypto accelerator card to solve any perceived issues with dm-crypt speed, but unless you're doing a ridiculous amount of I/O I don't think you're going to notice a difference.
  
  --
  512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
8. Re:Encryption? by Nimey · 2010-05-14 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  I believe encryption's been on the TODO for ext2/3/4 since the early ext2 days, though.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
9. Re:Encryption? by the_one(2) · 2010-05-14 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  When copying a 1,1 GiB file to /dev/null in 80 MiB/s the decryption only takes around 60-70% of one core on a low powered MD Athlon 4850e
features by Lord+Ender · 2010-05-14 09:52 · Score: 4, Informative

The main Btrfs features include: Extent based file storage (2^64 max file size) Space efficient packing of small files Space efficient indexed directories Dynamic inode allocation Writable snapshots Subvolumes (separate internal filesystem roots) Object level mirroring and striping Checksums on data and metadata (multiple algorithms available) Compression Integrated multiple device support, with several raid algorithms Online filesystem check Very fast offline filesystem check Efficient incremental backup and FS mirroring Online filesystem defragmentation Currently the code is in an early implementation phase, and not all of these have yet been implemented. See the Development timeline for detailed release plans. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
1. Re:features by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 11:49 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Does Btrfs support proportional fonts?
2. Re:features by Dahamma · 2010-05-15 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, that's a LOT of features. But I love this part...
  Currently the code is in an early implementation phase, and not all of these have yet been implemented.
  They even forgot to mention these other interesting Btrfs features that make it WAY better than all of the other file systems:
  Solar powered journaling Quantum string mirroring Automated backup cameras Continuous vacuum suction with no loss of data and it's high in Omega-3 fatty acids.
3. Re:features by mabhatter654 · 2010-05-15 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  no all "00000000's" and "11111111's" occupy the same width on the hard drive. You don't save any space even though "1" is slimmer. His post reflects this.
4. Re:features by Bryan3000000 · 2010-05-18 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  Does it do scrubbing when there is redundancy? FSCK is not good enough - scrubbing, data repair, and reporting of all data errors is incredible.
Ahh yes... by dreemernj · 2010-05-14 09:57 · Score: 1

Btrfs or butterfs. This should go smoothly. I hear it's throughput is very fast.

--
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Ubuntu speculation? MeeGo confirmation wins. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 09:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Btrfs will be the default filesystem for MeeGo:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.meego.devel/1510
Why does this article scare me? by filesiteguy · 2010-05-14 10:00 · Score: 1

Granted, I'm usually a version behind on Ubuntu. I've just upgraded to 9.1 recently. However, with ReiserFS, EXT and other file systems seeming to be very well seasoned and working, why bring in something completely new?

--
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
1. Re:Why does this article scare me? by ArsonSmith · 2010-05-14 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Because stability is extremely boring. And difficult to charge for services on things that never break.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
2. Re:Why does this article scare me? by Artifakt · 2010-05-14 10:20 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Reiser is basically out - it's simply not being developed fast enough to keep up with the curve. EXT 4 seems unstable.
  (Just my humble opinion, but I went back to EXT 3 for a complete reinstall of Kubuntu 9.4 after giving it a try for a good 3 months, and I've been installing various Linux's since stormlinux back in 2001. I haven't completely wiped an install (well, not at the cost of losing any data that might have even minimal value at all) and rebuilt from scratch in years, outside of that one case.).
  EXT 3 is sufficient for most users needs, probably 90% of users overall, but I have to respect the ones who feel its limits - they are probably right to chafe under them. People do the damnedest things with Linux, and some of those things genuinely need very specific, perhaps idiosyncratic journaling methods, and other specialised file management techniques.
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
3. Re:Why does this article scare me? by icebraining · 2010-05-14 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  And difficult to charge for services on things that never break.
  Charge?
  10.10 won't be a LTS release, so nobody in their right mind would use it for enterprise servers/desktops, and I doubt anyone buys home desktop support from Canonical.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
4. Re:Why does this article scare me? by xenocide2 · 2010-05-14 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  OEMs do. Canonical's business operations are largely opaque to the community. Sources of revenue I've discovered include: OEMs like Dell buying engineering support contracts for their Ubuntu laptop/netbook offerings, hardware manufacturers paying Ubuntu to port to their new platform, and OEMs like Toshiba paying Canonical to run certification testing.
  For netbooks, faster boot and performance is a feature worth pursuing. At this point all I've seen is Scott mention they'll try it and test it before the point of no return that comes with time based releases.
  
  --
  I Browse at +4 Flamebait
  Open Source Sysadmin
5. Re:Why does this article scare me? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  LTS is really just a marketing trick, the quality of their LTS releases isn't what you'd expect.
  For instance, since the release of 10.04 coincided with me building a new router, I gave it a go. Now I'm stuck with an OS that has two different init systems and no command-line tool for managing boot services that works with both of them.
  How can you screw up something so elementary in a unix system and release it as a "server edition" is beyond me.
  </rant>
6. Re:Why does this article scare me? by RabbitWho · 2010-05-14 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno why people are bothering to complain, Maverick Meerkat will be all about trying out new things, they'll scrap whatever doesn't work. The non LTS are just beta runs for LTSs which they sell to companies, and we're all super lucky beta-testers. Lucid is LTS, you can hang onto it till the next LTS if you want stability, ubuntu are more interested in innovation and moving with the times.
  
  --
  it's under construction
7. Re:Why does this article scare me? by PastaLover · 2010-05-15 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  There's a whole slew of feature that increase the reliability and performance of these filesystems on large disks. Basically, they're more modern than what we have now. Do some reading: http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/
8. Re:Why does this article scare me? by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-05-15 15:35 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Maverick Meerkat will be all about trying out new things, they'll scrap whatever doesn't work.
  
  Funny, that sounds like the last 3 Ubuntu releases to me. Except for the "scrap" part, that is.
9. Re:Why does this article scare me? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-16 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  I think 9.04 might have been a little early to include ext4, I originally tried it with the Ubuntu 9.04 netbook remix and had some issues (which may or may not have been related to ext4, but I think it was) and so I reinstalled with ext2 for that version. Before Christmas I installed ext4 (unjournalled because of my netbook's slow SSD) with Ubuntu 9.10 and haven't had a filesystem related issue even though it isn't always cleanly shut down.
  I have a feeling that even if Ubuntu do force btrfs in as default in 10.10 it won't be quite ready till 11.04, but Ubuntu have a history of forcing things in that aren't quite ready.
10. Re:Why does this article scare me? by filesiteguy · 2010-05-16 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. I knew Hans sort of - erm - killed teh ReiserFS development process by deciding to head to jail.
  
  I just upgraded to 10.04 yesterday and plan to stick here for awhile. So far, everything works fine - I even got printing to PDF working through my WINE apps.
  
  Apparently I'm on EXT4. Crossing fingers, I guess...
  
  Thank you for the informative update.
  
  --
  The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Re:It hasn't been ruled out, but it is ruled unlik by emj · 2010-05-14 10:02 · Score: 2, Funny

Thank you, exacly what I wanted to say. I mean it hasn't been ruled out that the Meerkat CDs will ship on ICMB from South Africa, which is slightly more likely than the CDs shipping with Btrfs as default.
Re:Obligatory by Deosyne · 2010-05-14 10:07 · Score: 1

Because a web comic made a joke based upon the name? Well, I suppose you have to have some sort of requirement in order to decide.
btrfs may have a better foundation by thule · 2010-05-14 10:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

But btrfs may actually have a better foundation than ZFS. When ZFS was first conceived they didn't believe a file system could do btree's and COW. btrfs has proven that it can be done. See the section "btrfs: Pre-history" at:

A short history of btrfs
1. Re:btrfs may have a better foundation by Sycraft-fu · 2010-05-14 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Now why would they believe that in 2007? Volume Shadow Copy, implemented on MS Server 2003 and in Vista clients, uses COW on top of NTFS, which is B+ Tree. I mean reading that it sounds like the basic system they use is rather similar to NTFS. No problem there, NTFS works quite well, however it seems to be this sort of willful, or perhaps pretend, ignorance that such a thing didn't already exist and work well in a major OS.
Right by dnaumov · 2010-05-14 10:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is a filesystem, where the developers keep finding major (including fatal) bugs basically every other week. If even the slightest idea of making it the default filesystem in a distribution scheduled for release in 6 months crosses your mind, seek professional help. Now.
1. Re:Right by Pecisk · 2010-05-14 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  In distribution, which have claimed several times, that they suggest to use LTS releases, leaving regular releases for early adopters.
  p.s. ZFS have had fatal bugs too after major stable release.
  
  --
  user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
2. Re:Right by diegocg · 2010-05-14 11:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Indeed. Btrfs is still making disk format changes. They aren't very serious, but hey, they are there. Not a sign of stability, no matter how much cheksumming you throw at it.
3. Re:Right by Jeffrey+Baker · 2010-05-14 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Double true. Last time I looked at btrfs it was also thousands of times slower than ext4 (no joke). It's not ready for public consumption.
4. Re:Right by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 18:08 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you feel the need to defend possible problems with btrfs by pointing at problems in ZFS? Let btrfs stand or fall on its own merits.
5. Re:Right by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 20:14 · Score: 0
  
  A thought just came to me: What can you expect from the same distro that put PulseAudio as the main sound system when it is in pre-Alpha stage right now?
  xtracto -anon because I modded.
6. Re:Right by LingNoi · 2010-05-15 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Pulse audio is totally unnecessary. It adds layers upon layers of abstraction which could be taken away by adopting OSSv4 instead.
  I'm sure from a users perspective, sound works better now with Pulse Audio however it's a complete mess under the hood.
7. Re:Right by moonbender · 2010-05-15 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't PA being used by pretty much all of the large, desktop-oriented Linux distros? Fedora, OpenSUSE and Ubuntu all seem to use it by default.
  
  --
  Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
8. Re:Right by Macka · 2010-05-16 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Bah, fud and rubbish. Ext4 used to be a bit faster than btrfs but as of 2.6.33-rc4 (back in January) that situation has reversed, as Phoronix discovered when they tested it. And as for on disk format changes they've already stated that there won't be any more changes now unless they find any critical bugs that require it.
Re:Obligatory by icebraining · 2010-05-14 10:16 · Score: 1

And the joke would work even if 's/Ubuntu/Slackware/'.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
I can see why they think it's ready! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:22 · Score: 1, Funny

[linux-2.6]$ git log fs/btrfs | egrep "Author.*ubuntu" | wc -l
0
I mean, with that amount of effort, it's about time they are able to finally bask in the glory of their creation!
It'll also be comforting to know their btrfs developers will be able to resolve any problems that may crop up.
Just sayin'
1. Re:I can see why they think it's ready! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  [linux-2.6]$ git log fs/btrfs | egrep "Author.*ubuntu" | wc -l
  0
  Ok so this is more relevant:
  [linux-2.6]$ git log fs/btrfs | egrep "Author.*canonical" | wc -l
  0
  but you get the idea.
durrr by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:31 · Score: 0

whoosh
Poor Reiser... by mangu · 2010-05-14 10:33 · Score: 1, Informative

He imported a Russian wife just to get rid of the old geeks-have-no-girlfriends jokes. Now he has created a brand new kind of geek joke.
1. Re:Poor Reiser... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  In Soviet Russia, you kill ReiserFS!
Better Options by sunderland56 · 2010-05-14 10:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
How about either
- Having no default, and presenting a list of options (with suitable help, detailing why each would be a good or a bad choice); or
- Having an intelligent default, based on disk capacity, use (i.e. boot volume or not), and technology (magnetic versus solid state)
1. Re:Better Options by Daengbo · 2010-05-14 12:17 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Your second point is very good, but Ubuntu has always been about opinionated choices. When 4.10 came out, it was decided to forgo the normal Linux 5 CD installation's 10 text editors, four word processors, and three browsers (practically required in the early 2000s because some apps worked for some things and not for others) and instead install just one type of each application on one CD. In short, having no default totally goes against their mission.
  The installer always gives you the option to go advanced and choose your own partition setup and file systems.
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
2. Re:Better Options by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 14:58 · Score: 0
  
  While not necessarily something official, I've always been under the impression one of Ubuntu's goals is simplification. To much choice upsets many users. One of the best things about Ubuntu is that you have to do hardly anything to set it up. Partitioning (which is fairly unavoidable) and giving the default user/password - that's about it right now. It's probably within Ubuntu's best interest to keep it that way.
3. Re:Better Options by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-16 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Why does the default have to based on anything related to the user's configuration? If the user chooses to do anything other than the default single partition for anything, then they should be capable of researching the options. For usage on a single partition setup ext4 should be fine whatever the size of the partition (after all there is a minimum required amount of space to install, it can't really be less than 4GB without customization of the install).
4. Re:Better Options by MMC+Monster · 2010-05-17 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with multiple options is that unless you happen to know something about filesystems, you'll likely be scared to make any choice, and think "Linux is hard".
  Rather, what they do now is fine: Default option will create a new partition with the default filesystem, with an expert mode that will let you set whatever partitions you want with whatver mount points you want, and decide what gets formated (ie: /) and what gets left alone (ie: /home).
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Brt-fs ?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 10:35 · Score: 0

Why does Britain have its own filesystem, and why does the Ubuntu Market (which I assume is a free market) want to use it?
1. Re:Brt-fs ?!? by osu-neko · 2010-05-14 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Why does Britain have its own filesystem, and why does the Ubuntu Market (which I assume is a free market) want to use it?
  I don't know, but as long as this Maverick doesn't ship together with Harebrained Hockeymom, it might do okay...
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Developed by Oracle, you say? by Rogerborg · 2010-05-14 10:49 · Score: 1

Speak on... who owns the inevitable patents on it? Where is the clear, explicit and irrevocable patent licensing or covenant on them?
No... no, I think I'll pass on it. You're either trusty-worthy, or you're not.

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
1. Re:Developed by Oracle, you say? by LingNoi · 2010-05-15 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Surely it would be difficult to argue that in court as I have read that the way btfs works was invented by a professor and implemented by someone else before they joined Oracle.
  How could they own a valid patent on something they have no hand in inventing.
2. Re:Developed by Oracle, you say? by JonJ · 2010-05-15 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Luckily Sun isn't owned by.. Oh wait.
  
  --
  -- Linux user #369862
volume management by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 11:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

But btrfs may actually have a better foundation than ZFS. When ZFS was first conceived they didn't believe a file system could do btree's and COW. btrfs has proven that it can be done. See the section "btrfs: Pre-history" at: A short history of btrfs

And ZFS incorporates volume management, so no more pvcreate/vgcreate/lvcreate rigamarole; and LVM doesn't even give you mirroring/RAID--you have you have to use a completely different software stack for that.
You can have your b-trees, I'll take my "zpool create <mirror|raidz[1-3]> <devs>", thanks. "zfs send/recv" is also awesome.
Just waiting for built-in crypto and "bp rewrite" now, but otherwise I've been happily using ZFS in production for a few years.
1. Re:volume management by diegocg · 2010-05-14 11:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Obviously, Btrfs also does volume management without LVM. It even manages to do better than ZFS in some areas, for example Btrfs can reduce the pool capacity easily thanks to back references (a new and cool fs technique which is being incorporated to Btrfs), whereas ZFS still can't reduce the capacity of a pool and it will take a lot of complexity to implement it (you really should read the link)
2. Re:volume management by Cyberax · 2010-05-14 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Btrfs has built-in volume management (including intelligent RAID) too...
3. Re:volume management by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget one other very useful feature, especially on VM servers that ZFS has:
  Deduplication on the block level. This allows one to have multiple copies of OS images, but save a large amount of space. This also is very useful when it comes to backups of servers, because the OS partition on most machines has almost always the same exact files.
  The problem is not ZFS. It is the fact that there is a lot of uncertainty around Sun right now. Nobody knows if ZFS will get shelved in the future and essentially abandoned like the JavsStations, or if it would still be worked on.
Is it better in the recovery department than ext3? by Enleth · 2010-05-14 11:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Personally, I'm using reiserfs (that is, reiser3, not reiser4) solely due to its outstanding disaster recovery capabilities. No matter what happens to the media or the filesystem itself, "reiserfsck --rebuild-tree" is going to bring back everything that was not directly overwritten or corrupted. I've had many things happen to my disks (head crashes, several gigabytes from the beginnig of the partition being overwritten by a borked OS isntaller, "rm -rf blah/ *" instead of "rm -rf blah/*" and so on), and every single time, --rebuild-tree recovered everything that still was there to be recovered. As far as I know, this is due to the fact that all the filesystem metadata is distributed evenly throughout the partition, heavily replicated and identifiable using some kind of magic hashes even when there is no higher-order structure left (so a --rebuild-tree process can just do a linear scan of the damaged partition and find all the "dangling" inodes with ease).
As far as I know, this is not possible (especially using the standard fsck utility as with reiserfs) with the ext* family of filesystems.
So, does btrfs have similar capabilities? If so, I'm going to be quite interested in testing it, even though I'm not using Ubuntu.

--
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
NTFS? by thule · 2010-05-14 12:12 · Score: 1

I don't know that NTFS implements their shadow system like btrfs. If they do, you might want to inform IBM and ACM Transactions on Computational Logic and let them know that they should have publish Microsoft's research instead. The paper the refer to was published August 2007.

B-trees, Shadowing, and Clones by Ohad Rodeh, IBM Haifa Research Labs.
1. Re:NTFS? by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-05-15 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  They can't publish the paper that isn't there.
  That said, we don't know if NTFS does it exactly the same. However, GP's point still stands - Windows has been able to do shadowing of volumes with a filesystem that's known to be B-tree based for a while now, one way or another.
Encryption needs to be integrated by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 13:02 · Score: 0

Why wouldn't you just do your encryption at the block device level using dm-crypt? Then it doesn't matter what filesystem you're using.
Someone further up said that btrfs can now do volume management. Are you proposing to do the block device level encryption below btrfs (using a second level of btrfs or a different volume manager to create the logical devices)? Or above btrfs (if btrfs even supports logical volumes within itself, like ZFS does) and then use btrfs or another filesystem within that container?
You can begin to see the problems with non-integrated volume management, encryption, compression, and deduplication.
Meego is Switching by segedunum · 2010-05-14 13:11 · Score: 1

Meego is already switching:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODIzOA

This is happening sooner than I thought. Maybe people are just getting pig sick of long fscks on large drives and partitions, which ext4 just doesn't solve to any degree of sastisfaction? I know I am.

Server-wise I run a lot of OpenVZ machines and snapshotting them through LVM and occasionally fscking the volume, which you have todo, is painful. ext3 has outlived its usefulness there. I could move to XFS but XFS just simply doesn't have the broad support from a lot of software out there unforutunately and you start getting into doing certain hacks for it. The xfs_freeze is one thing it has going for it though and it is very useful if you don't or can't run LVM. ext4 just doesn't give me confidence that anything will fundamentally improve over ext3 from what I've seen. The ext filesystem line, LVM and software RAID has served us well but it's time to start moving on.
1. Re:Meego is Switching by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-14 21:58 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Not really switching: Moblin has been using btrfs for more ~6 months already.
pronunciation by viridari · 2010-05-14 15:08 · Score: 1

Butterface.
does btrfs have robust backup utility?? by diekhans · 2010-05-14 15:25 · Score: 1

like dump??? Instead of deciding between rsync and tar??
1. Re:does btrfs have robust backup utility?? by Macka · 2010-05-15 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  I've not heard of one.
  I imagine that btrfs, with its built in compression, will make an excellent target f/s for rsync. The target f/s can then be backed up to tape for offsite storage using whatever your favourite tool happens to be (Amanda, Bacula, Data Protector, Netbackup, etc). That's one of the uses I have in mind for it when I believe it's stable and battle tested enough for production use. But then I'm a big fan of diskdisktape solutions, especially using rsync. Fast to backup and fast to restore, and (most important) it's available for use when you do a rescue boot from CD/DVD/PXE.
My experience with btrfs by troubbble · 2010-05-14 15:36 · Score: 0

I've been using btrfs with compression for my root partition with kernel 2.6.33 for about 3 months now. As far as I can tell, it's been rock solid. I haven't noticed any significant changes in speed compared to XFS, so maybe it's not worth the risk. However, I do like the fact that it's so easy to create separate subvolumes for /usr, /var, etc. (not /etc) in the same partition. Not that I'd necessarily recommend other people take the plunge at this point...
1. Re:My experience with btrfs by Macka · 2010-05-15 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm curious, what does df report when using subvolumes? Do all the subvolumes (including the 'default') show the same amount of available space?
Re:Is it better in the recovery department than ex by kimvette · 2010-05-14 16:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

I used to run Reiserfs after having a VERY bad experience with EXT3, but I've since switched back to EXT3 now that it's a lot more mature.
What did I like about Reiser? Exactly as you described; I never saw --rebuilt-tree fail. I've had NTFS and EXT2 and EXT3 partitions go bad but I have never had a ReiserFS partition become unrecoverable; if the drive spun up and could be enumerated by the OS, reiserfsck could retrieve everything even if it appeared lost. I also really liked the zero-slack feature (no wasted disk space!)
Why did I finally abandon ship?
Honestly, it was performance.
Writes are fast under reiser -- VERY fast. It is super reliable - I've never expected any filesystem to be so resilient.
What was wrong with it then?
Deletes. Deletions take for-freaking-ever. Right-click a file on a reiserfs partition in konqueror, and wait and wait and wait (watch the minute hand move on a clock or watch!) for the context menu. Delete a folder containing 70K files? Start the delete, come back an hour later, and see the deletion is still going. It is dreadfully slow deleting files. Do the same to an EXT3 (or now, EXT4) partition, an XFS partition, or even NTFS (via NTFS-3G) partition, and the deletion will take seconds - or maybe a minute for really immense directories. Reiser? s. . . . l. . . . o. . . . .w. . . that was honestly the only thing I could find wrong with Reiser (the FS, obviously, not the mama-killing douche of a meatbag who is hopefully being raped and beat up daily)

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Learn from EU by a_claudiu · 2010-05-14 20:06 · Score: 1

Having no default, and presenting a list of options

Make it a balot screen with random order.
British file system? by Lost+Penguin · 2010-05-14 20:51 · Score: 1

But,that would be UKFS...

--
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
before you move to btrfs, read the "Gotchas" by sick_soul · 2010-05-14 21:20 · Score: 2, Informative

I find some of the features interesting, but until these problems are solved, I will not try it out.
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Gotchas
Yeah by roman_mir · 2010-05-14 23:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, I know, I know, it's a killer file system.

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:Yeah by zonker · 2010-05-15 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  That joke murders 'em every time.
  
  --
  Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Re:Is it better in the recovery department than ex by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-15 00:45 · Score: 1, Funny

I've seen ext2/3 delete all of my files, very quickly. Not exactly the intended behavior at the time.
Of course by Murdoch5 · 2010-05-15 01:28 · Score: 1

Ubuntu might be the most popular Linux distro out there but it's the most heavily weighted and sluggish of them all. Once again we see Ubuntu getting a change that has no use other then to make it slower and more bloated. What Ubuntu needs is a full strip down and rebuild like a Gentoo install. Every-time I've installed Ubuntu for work or school I see an immediate loss of performance in the range of 40% compared to my Gentoo install. Now don't pull the Binary vs Source argument out because a binary Arch install is just as fast as Gentoo. I think what we really need to see is Ubuntu getting redesigned and this time the focus should be on performance and not Graphics / File Systems / Chat Programs etc..... Besides if I wanted slow and horrible I'd install Windows.
1. Re:Of course by LingNoi · 2010-05-15 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Speak for yourself, I've used Ubuntu for many years now and the latest LTS boots faster then the previous ones.
  You are only perceiving Ubuntu to be bloated because you had to install everything by hand on Gentoo and Arch. The fact is that Ubuntu isn't marketed at people like you. It's marketed at people that want to install a system with a comprehensive set of tools that allow someone to work on a desktop with minimal fuss.
  
  Every-time I've installed Ubuntu for work or school I see an immediate loss of performance in the range of 40% compared to my Gentoo install.
  Why exactly? Both Gentoo and Ubuntu are compiled with the same cflags by default ( -O2 ) so it isn't running faster. If you mean because Ubuntu is running more stuff well there's nothing stopping you from uninstalling the stuff you don't like. Synaptic even allows you to save package configurations so you don't have to do it every time you install Ubuntu.
2. Re:Of course by Murdoch5 · 2010-05-15 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Both Gentoo and Ubuntu are compiled with the same cflags by default ( -O2 ) so it isn't running faster.
  Gentoo is compiled with the flags you give it when you compile it. Also I've tried the new Ubuntu LTS and it's not that fast, It's boot time is horrible.
  
  Gentoo uses USE flags which actually let your packages only compile what they need and leave out the extra. So in fact Gentoo is faster because the packages get built better then any other system.
3. Re:Of course by LingNoi · 2010-05-15 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  I said the defaults were the same, not that you couldn't change them.
  
  So in fact Gentoo is faster because the packages get built better then any other system.
  How are you measuring better anyway?
  Speed? cflags aren't going to be much on an improvement past -O2 which is set by default in Gentoo and Ubuntu.
4. Re:Of course by Murdoch5 · 2010-05-15 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  This is a two headed coin, either you like Ubuntu and it's your system or you hate it. I remember back in the days of dapper Ubuntu was awesome, fast, stable, clean, well built. Now I can't say the same thing. I could sit here all day giving examples on optimizations past O2 but there's no point.
Filesystem safety by jd · 2010-05-15 05:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree that reiserfs has issues, having lost a few filesystems that way. Filesystem integrity is not something calculated from how long the system is marked production or even how stable some find it. We need better tools to stress filesystems so we can quantifiably measure safety for specific types of work. (I expect different results for different conditions, since some find reiserfs works for them.) Just as well Slashdotters are so good at causing stress...

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
1. Re:Filesystem safety by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-17 00:01 · Score: 0
  
  I agree that reiserfs has issues, having lost a few filesystems that way.
  and a few wives
Try for desktops too by Billly+Gates · 2010-05-15 07:32 · Score: 1

I have given up on Ubuntu 3 days ago on my laptop. Ubuntu is always under heavy development. Look at how many updates to 10.04 to fix thousands of bugs? I downgraded back down to Ubuntu 9.10 only to have updates with that release include the same buggy patches that caused me to leave 10.04. Or they have to disable something I use because too many people reported bugs with the latest version of package x. It does not surprise me to see Cananical rush to put in btrfs.
BTRFS is a cool feature but I do not want to use it before its ready. Will it be ready? Microsoft gave up on WinFS and with ZFS, it was around for years inside SUN before being tested ready for Solaris. Ext4 was rushed out too and many apps are incompatible with it due to expecting a bug with ext3.
I am using Fedora 13 now(just came out yesterday on its ftp server). It seems less cutting edge which I find ironic as this was the reason I left Fedora Core 2 6 years ago.
Mandrake and Gentoo seemed to have the same fate with once becoming popular they try to rush packages in and lose stability.

--
http://saveie6.com/
1. Re:Try for desktops too by ls671 · 2010-05-15 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  I am a happy Slackware user since 1995 but this is just me, milleage may vary.
  
  --
  Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Re:Is it better in the recovery department than ex by mvdwege · 2010-05-15 08:22 · Score: 1

Personally, I'm using reiserfs (that is, reiser3, not reiser4) solely due to its outstanding disaster recovery capabilities.

You're kidding, right? Tell me you're being sarcastic, please.
There's nothing I love more than finding parts of my syslog in my mail spool after a crash. And then being told that to prevent that I should turn off block packing, which was one of the USPs of reiserfs in the first place.

No matter what happens to the media or the filesystem itself, "reiserfsck --rebuild-tree" is going to bring back everything that was not directly overwritten or corrupted.

Yes, well, that one caveat says it all, now doesn't it? Filesystem corruption after a crash is almost a given on reiserfs. And I'm not the only one complaining about that. And even if I weren't, the cavalier attitude of its developers towards these kind of reports does not engender a lot of trust in me. That's my data they're letting me play beta-tester with.
Mart

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Re:Is it better in the recovery department than ex by Enleth · 2010-05-15 09:17 · Score: 1

You're kidding, right? Tell me you're being sarcastic, please.
There's nothing I love more than finding parts of my syslog in my mail spool after a crash. And then being told that to prevent that I should turn off block packing, which was one of the USPs of reiserfs in the first place.
Never, ever had reiserfs corrupt itself, even after kernel panics, power failures and the likes. Are you sure your HDDs were not playing tricks on you with false cache flush confirmations to look better in benchmarks?

Yes, well, that one caveat says it all, now doesn't it? Filesystem corruption after a crash is almost a given on reiserfs.

I was talking about outside influences - physical HDD damage, another OS screwing something up while the OS using the reiserfs partition is off, etc. Stick to your signature and do not skew my words in your favor in a pseudo-smart-assy way, will you?
And even if what you said was true (which my experience doesn't confirm), is there any other Linux filesystem that is actually capable of any serious data recovery when the standard fsck fails?

--
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
Re:Is it better in the recovery department than ex by mvdwege · 2010-05-15 21:10 · Score: 1

Aww, did I hurt the poor fanboi's feelings?
Your reaction is typical: reiserfs fucks up, blame the user instead.
Mart

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Re:Is it better in the recovery department than ex by Enleth · 2010-05-16 00:17 · Score: 1

Eh, what? This is what I wrote, in order:
1. I had never experienced the problem myself.
2. Badly designed HDDs are known to screw with journaling filesystems, it could be that reiserfs is vulnerable to this.
3. I was talking about something else than you tthough I was.
4. I asked you to stop the "fixed that for you" crap that you claim so openly to hate yourself.
5. I asked an honest, serious on-topic question (and I'm still expecting an honest, serious, on-topic response).
Where exactly among those points did I "blame the user"? At worst, it was "*maybe* blame the hardware", which is not that unreasonable. If you feel so personal about your HDDs, well, I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings,but I suspect it was just another instance of reading things that are not really there.
Now, what about the question I had?

--
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
Re:Is it better in the recovery department than ex by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-19 03:41 · Score: 0

not the mama-killing douche of a meatbag who is hopefully being raped and beat up daily
Violent and idiotic. Check.
I begin to see a pattern emerging in this kind of comment.
Are you from the US?
Re:Is it better in the recovery department than ex by Anonymous Coward · 2010-05-19 05:01 · Score: 0

Are you a eurotrash white liberal with a guilt complex who condones killing innocents and opposes death sentences or other harsh punishments for murderers, terrorists, and pedophiles? You like treating the criminal as the victim?
OK then, I guess we could let someone like Hans Reiser loose on their family then, and let him go free and maybe live next door to you, or in your flat/apartment complex? Would you then support he get off as easy as he did? The punishment he has (for mudering his wife, leaving his children without their mother) is nowhere near harsh enough, so yes, I do hope he is raped and beaten every single night.