Slashdot Mirror


Linux 3.6 Released

diegocg writes "Linux 3.6 has been released. It includes new features in Btrfs: subvolume quotas, quota groups and snapshot diffs (aka 'send/receive'). It also includes support for suspending to disk and memory at the same time, a TCP 'Fast Open' mode, a 'TCP small queues' feature to fight bufferbloat; support for safe swapping over NFS/NBD, better Ext4 quota support, support for the PCIe D3cold power state; and VFIO, which allows safe access from guest drivers to bare-metal host devices. Here's the full changelog."

16 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. I Use Linux 3.6 by o5770 · · Score: 5, Funny

    While the new features like quota groups, snapshot diffs and tcp "fast open" are great, what's really bothering this version is its tendency to

    1. Re:I Use Linux 3.6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Completely agree. I remember when a new Linux release was about a solid, compact code base. Now it's all about optimising for specific interests even at the expense of

    2. Re:I Use Linux 3.6 by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Funny

      come on, finish the sentence. don't leave us hang

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  2. Thin clients rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Swap over NFS is something I've been waiting a long time for =)

  3. And if you're not a fan of binary blobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  4. TCP Fast Open by w1z7ard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like a great feature! From the article:

    "Fast Open could result in speed improvements of between 4% and 41% in the page load times on popular web sites. In this version only the client-side has been merged."

    --

    "Recursive bipartite matching"- try it!

    1. Re:TCP Fast Open by Marillion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      On the and-user client side, there may not be much noticeable improvement. But on servers and/or load-balancing front ends this type of improvement could be quite significant.

      --
      This is a boring sig
  5. BTRFS experiences? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd be interested to hear what uses people have found for the advanced features of BTRFS. (BTRFS snapshots on a RAID1 volume seem like a great /home partition?) Since BTRFS is gradually evolving it's kind of hard to get a grasp of what is currently available and trustworthy (although this approach is vastly preferable to Microsoft's approach to revolutionizing the filesystem - aim high and never deliver!)

    1. Re:BTRFS experiences? by mcelrath · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've been using btrfs on two computers for about a year now. I'd say it's quite stable. I'm using it for /home as well as a data partition, with zlib compression on /home. The snapshot feature is amazing and should be used liberally. Early on I experienced some disk corruption (mostly due to rapidly switching kernel versions 3.0, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5), which was not a problem because there existed snapshots on the disk. The primary partition can be corrupted, but if you have an uncorrupted snapshot, you can mount it. So, it's a good idea to get in the habit of making regular snapshots. I've been doing it by hand, but a daily rotating snapshots would be a great idea for reliability. There are many cron jobs, shell scripts and whatnot to accomplish this (e.g. Autosnap). Furthermore there is apt-btrfs-snapshot which on Debian/Ubuntu systems will automatically snapshot whenever upgrading/installing a package. This basically takes care of changes in /usr (and you'll need a cron job for /home). The only real drawback I've encountered is that dpkg is very slow (likely due to my use of zlib compression). But dpkg's database access has been a snail for a long time and is dpkg's problem (and I hope someone looks into this soon, it's pissing me off -- zlib just exacerbates the problem). But since apt-get upgrade can run in the background while I'm working, it doesn't really bother me.

      I'm also using RAID1 on all magnetic disks (plus one SSD not in a RAID configuration). After countless disk failures, I just don't trust magnetic disks any further than I can throw them. And, they are cheap enough that two instead of one is not a huge burden. In the last year, I have not had occasion to recover from a failure due to RAID1, but I have experimented with mounting one half of the RAID1, and it operates normally. There are a few tricks to re-sync the drives when its partner is re-added to the array, that one should be aware of. It's not fully automatic. One of my RAID1 arrays is over two LVM volumes, with the left half consisting of a single 3 TB disk, and the right half consisting of three disks concatenated into a single LVM. This makes it easier to add disks later. LVM and btrfs can both resize.

      A couple things to be aware of: you cannot place a swap file on a btrfs partition. So use another filesystem, a full partition, or just buy more RAM (my preferred solution). You should not use a kernel version less than 3.5. There have been many fixes between 3.0 and 3.4, and you're asking for trouble if you use btrfs on a 3.0 or 3.2 kernel. Since I installed 3.5 kernels on all my machines, I have not had any btrfs-related problems. FWIW, I regularly have to reboot because ATI's shitty video driver causes a kernel panic, sometimes via a hard reset. I have yet to see any filesystem corruption due to this. And everyone should know how to use the Magic SysRq key in the event of kernel panics too. (Alt-SysRq- REIUSB should unmount, sync, and boot, leaving filesystems in a consistent state)

      I highly recommend BTRFS at this point. I'm not sure the distributions are up to noob auto-installs, but if you like to do things yourself, it offers a lot of advantages over ext4.

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    2. Re:BTRFS experiences? by flok · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you have LVM underneath the ext4 filesystem, you can indeed randomly grow the fs.

      --

      www.vanheusden.com - home of Multitail, HTTPing, CoffeeSaint, EntropyBroker, rsstail, bsod, listener, nagcon, nagi
  6. Re:The consumers want to know by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So no one important.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  7. Re:The consumers want to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It was some fine Tuesday back in 2008-09. Why do you ask?

  8. Re:Ok, ok, question by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Try kernelnewbies.org and Wikipedia also.

  9. Sounds like Windows' IIS by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This sounds a bit like they generalized the clever latency-saving behavior of IE which skips the TCP handshake when talking to IIS and leaves connections half-open. Latency could indeed be greatly improved for servers supporting it.

  10. Re:Please explain by Metabolife · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's really quite simple. The parent and grandparent are simply implying that

  11. Re:Please explain by sgage · · Score: 5, Funny

    There once was a man from Lahore,
    whose limericks stopped at line four.
    When asked why this was,
    he said just because