Slashdot Mirror
OpenSUSE May Be First Major Distro To Adopt Btrfs By Default
An anonymous reader writes "The openSUSE Linux distribution looks like it may be the first major Linux distribution to ship the Btrfs file-system by default. The openSUSE 13.1 release is due out in November and is still using EXT4 by default, but after that the developers are looking at having openSUSE using Btrfs by default on new installations. The Btrfs features to be enabled would be the ones the developers feel are data-safe."
Not really that interesting that they're "considering" it. Linux produces an endless litany of RSNs that never come to fruition. I've basically become numb to predictions about the future of the system. Everyone's been planning to do everything RSN for a decade and a half.
The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
They should enable all the worst options by default, that way people will learn to learn what they're doing. It's not like installing an OS is something you just do casually without any thought.
Should I be calling it "Butterface"? Because I am calling it "Butterface."
I've gotten 4 machines running "native zfs for linux" using the stable ppa for ubuntu server 12.04.
It has been a truly mixed bag. Like a bag full of with crashed machines. At least the data has survived each time.
I am genuinely excited at the idea of BTRFs becoming production ready.
I remember when SuSE was one of the only distros, perhaps the only one, which used reiserfs as the default filesystem. No, there's no punchline. This was when you could buy it in a box (including the little chamelon pin) off the shelf at CompUSA. SuSE has always had a fascination with new filesystems.
According to the summary, OpenSUSE 13.1 is not the one that will default to btrfs, so I don't know why you are saying not to install 13.1.
The openSUSE 13.1 release is due out in November and is still using EXT4 by default, but after that the developers are looking at having openSUSE using Btrfs by default on new installations.
Zfs is better.
For some use cases, yes. For all use cases, of course not.
What I'm waiting for is a full BTRFS or ZFS-savvy distro layout. And by that, I mean a filesystem for every package with rollback support built into the package managers. Nexenta and Fedora have taken some baby steps in this direction but they only snapshot the whole system at this point.
"But we can't have six thousand filesystems on a machine!" Of course you can, it's 2013. The FHS was developed for filesystems that existed two decades ago.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Phoronix Benchmarks will give you an idea of the perfomance differences. Btrfs is usually middle of the pack, so nothing to write home about. The big deal with btrfs is the new features like COW, snapshots, filesystem compression, etc. If you are looking for more performance btrfs is not going to impress. If you are looking for better RAID perfomance, snapshots, compression, etc. Then btrfs is going to be huge for linux. It is probably the closest linux will get to having a ZFS clone.
Yes. I use it in conjunction with LXC and making clones is instant thanks to the BTRFS snapshots.
there are too many bugs in btrfs for it to be installed in production:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/buglist.cgi?component=btrfs
Well, hold on a second here...
Your list shows 196 bugs with only 36 still un-fixed.
Yet EXT4 shows 214 bugs with still 34 still un-fixed.
Yet Ext4 seems to by adopted by world plus dog.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I question the use case, The hardware was defiantly desktop grade
Was the hardware told that it absolutely must stop being desktop grade? I see no other reason for it to express defiance.
Filesystem-level transparent compression, transparent encryption, extended attributes, alternate data streams, integrity levels, multiple ACLs, at least some level of snapshotting, etc. Plus a bunch of stuff that all decent FSes should have, like journaling (not as good as newer FSes, though), symlinks, hardlinks, support for really large (though not ZFS-scale large) volumes, support for really long file and path names, support for many weird characters (prepend \\?\ to a Windows path to use them, as that bypasses Win32 "correction" of path names; just be aware you might not be able to open the file from a Win32 application anymore), and a few other things.
For its age, NTFS is very good. It is rather old though; there should be better options now (and there arguably are, at least for many use cases). It's not particularly fast, for example, and while you can use it with POSIX permissions (see the Subsystem for Unix Applications in Windows), it's not really built for it (NT only supports one "Owner" which may be a user or a group; SUA has to tack the other ownership info on as an extended attribute). I believe it also still lacks copy-on-write, which is a shame.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I've been using it awhile, haven't had any problems. Seems to be faster even if it makes my `ps aux` look scary with all those kernel processes.
Hmm ... that volume didn't have that much free space just a few minutes ago ...