Grub2 (I'm using grub2-2.0-0.37.beta6) supports a btrfs root (/).
Why should Grub2 care about your (/), as long as your (/boot) is readable?
It needs to know how to probe and reference btrfs subvolumes.
Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles"
on
Linux 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This was a bug that was corrected (it was a problem in cache flushing). All my testing occured after the bug was addressed, and pulling drive data cables while actively writing, as well as pulling drive power cables, was part of my testing. No data loss occurred in any test. The btrfsck and btrfs scrub/balance were able to correct all errors that resulted following the drive recovery.
The normal installation on Fedora 17 doesn't support btrfs, however, you can use a kickstart from a Fedora 17 liveCD/liveUSB to install onto btrfs. For example, adding the following to your kickstart:
You may be surprised to learn that the definition of 'production' is very much locally defined. To some companies I've dealt with, ancient stable software that gets no maintenance for years is the way to go. To others, driving the leading edge means competitive advantage. Most fall somewhere in the middle.
Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles"
on
Linux 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
With the current implementation and just the 'autodefrag' option added to default, there is no perceptable difference in performance compared to ext4 for any of our machines, with any application. Recent testing at Phoronix (with 3.4) has btrfs getting closer to ext4 (running without lvm2 and md raid); I'm curious to see how its numbers look in 3.5. However, because btrfs integrates the functionality of lvm2 and md raid in a much more usable manner, as well as providing much more functionality, a small performance tradeoff would be acceptable (to me).
It depends on your definition of 'broke'. You don't have any of the functionality in the newer kernels (tens of thousands of patches to current), so if you want to use any of that it certainly is 'broke'.:)
Re:Ext4 metadata checksums
on
Linux 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I accidentally replied to the wrong thread. Repost:
Btrfs is stable enough for real data, if you run current releases (latest 3.4 or 3.5 kernel and btrfs-progs-19 current). I use it in both single drive systems and raid1 configurations with Fedora 17. Prior to converting the systems, I ran extensive failure testing (e.g., pulling power / data connection during active writes, system crashes, using a failing drive with media errors as part of a raid1, etc.) for about a month. I never lost a single byte of data in any test, confirmed by checksum scans on all data (against a backup) after each test cycle.
I actually trust btrfs now more than ext4 due to the ability to scrub the data and confirm integrity, which I do daily or weekly depending on the system.
Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles"
on
Linux 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Btrfs is stable enough for real data, if you run current releases (latest 3.4 or 3.5 kernel and btrfs-progs-19 current). I use it in both single drive systems and raid1 configurations with Fedora 17. Prior to converting the systems, I ran extensive failure testing (e.g., pulling power / data connection during active writes, system crashes, using a failing drive with media errors as part of a raid1, etc.) for about a month. I never lost a single byte of data in any test, confirmed by checksum scans on all data (against a backup) after each test cycle.
I actually trust btrfs now more than ext4 due to the ability to scrub the data and confirm integrity, which I do daily or weekly depending on the system.
This "crippled piece of shit" can, among thousands of other things, run XBMC and output 1080p video, turning and dumb TV into a smartTV. Not too shabby for $25.
It may be obvious to us techy-types, but it's nice to see that it's not only us that sees it that way. I wonder if it'll affect the other litigation against the Galaxy Nexus? Pretty sure that same patent is used in that case.
It doesn't take a techy to see it's obvious. They've had slide to unlock mechanical bolts on doors and cabinets for centuries. Animating a physical device doesn't make it newly patentable.
XBMC on a small 1080p capable system (even a $35 Raspberry Pi will do), XBMC Remote on an Android device as the remote control, and optionally a file server for locally stored content. The library for movies and TV season DVDs. We cut the cord years ago.
The open source radeon driver is working flawlessly on my systems. Tear-free video, full Linux functionality, and acceptable 3D performance for light gaming. If you're having trouble with the open source driver, try LinuxQuestions.org.
All that's needed is for Nvidia to release the documentation on the components they manufacture, as AMD/ATI did in 2008 (and Intel has always done).
This is probably impossible too. nVidia and Direct3D were basically the same thing in DirectX6, which nVidia helped to create. Had to do with the Xbox, whose internal, original, concept name was DirectX-box. It is likely that nVidia can't release info on their hardware without running afoul of Microsoft.
Assuming that is correct, there will still be functionality not covered by joint patents that is problematic for nouveau. Power management, fan control, re-clocking, Optimus, etc. are areas where implementation details would be useful to shorten the pain of reverse engineering reliable functionality.
Posting anon because I've already modded this thread - I've clearly been way too far out of the loop for way too long. Is this to say that ATI is now the Linux-friendly manufacturer whereas NVidia is not? I thought that in the past, NVidia had the lead by way of better drivers, better stability, and VDPAU. Did ATI/AMD leapfrog ahead or is NVidia still the better way to go when building a PC with the intention of running Linux on it?
It's unnecessary, and likely impossible, for Nvidia to open source its proprietary driver, due to licensed software they don't own (they have stated in the past). All that's needed is for Nvidia to release the documentation on the components they manufacture, as AMD/ATI did in 2008 (and Intel has always done). The existing nouveau driver team will take it from there. Nvidia can also choose to provide funding, salaried developers, or sample cards for the team. That would put them in a parity position with AMD and Intel.
They didn't say slower, they said as needed. Since they are already releasing 'out of band' they are just normalizing that process. They will release when they have fixes / function instead of on an arbitrary timeline. It seems to make perfect sense.
Oh my goodness, because I live in Australia I have to wait a week before seeing a TV show? How do I manage? Sometimes I can't quite believe the world we live in.
The week delay wouldn't matter if everyone weren't connected via instant communication. Fans discuss shows online, so those that get it first start spilling spoilers all over the place. It's easier for many to go offline for a few hours and get the download, than it is to stay offline for a week (or months in the case of some shows). The regional delay in distribution is killing TV/Cable networks, yet they insist on holding on to the antiquated distribution methodology.
I think the GP wanted to say that this is a silly display of Internet entitlement mentality. Your response is yes it is serious because of spoilers on the Internet. Thanks for the good laugh buddy.
Somehow people do manage to enjoy TV shows and movies that are not steaming fresh out of the oven, and I hear people even manage to read books at their own leisure without being poked in the eye by spoilers at every turn. It's a great mystery how this is all possible I guess.
Your argument condenses down to entertainment content has no value. I agree. Piracy is, as a result, a non-issue.
Most articles I've seen indicate that rotational storage (and existing flash-based SSDs) will be replaced within 2 years by memristor-based storage or similar non-rotational, non-flash storage. It makes no sense for hard drive manufacturers to "race to the bottom" when they've already consolidated into 2 major manufacturers and sales have such a short term outlook.
Holy hell, what about no? There's a huge reason why hospitals try to keep off networks, especially public ones. Do you really want to connect all the timing devices in a hospital to an outside public server? Because running it yourself does no good, it can just fuck up all the devices in the hospital.
NTP does not require access to public networks. Private time servers, usually GPS sourced via rooftop antennas, are very common.
"The fact that the show is only available to those who pay for an HBO subscription doesn't help either"
Can all of the pirating apologists admit that, in this case, this is why most people are bootlegging the show?
No. The problem is that you cannot obtain this show without also paying for every other HBO show, and also paying for a cable subscription and DVR. If you need a car analogy, it's like having to buy a stocked dealership when all you want is a Toyota Prius.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should Grub2 care about your (/), as long as your (/boot) is readable?
It needs to know how to probe and reference btrfs subvolumes.
This was a bug that was corrected (it was a problem in cache flushing). All my testing occured after the bug was addressed, and pulling drive data cables while actively writing, as well as pulling drive power cables, was part of my testing. No data loss occurred in any test. The btrfsck and btrfs scrub/balance were able to correct all errors that resulted following the drive recovery.
Yes, the patches (1,2) were merged back in May.
The normal installation on Fedora 17 doesn't support btrfs, however, you can use a kickstart from a Fedora 17 liveCD/liveUSB to install onto btrfs. For example, adding the following to your kickstart:
zerombr
clearpart --all --initlabel
autopart --type=btrfs
This is how I set up our desktops. By default, the above will make the root (/) btrfs, and place /home in a subvolume.
Grub2 (I'm using grub2-2.0-0.37.beta6) supports a btrfs root (/). I have two machines running that way.
No, just that I shouldn't try to respond to posts from inside the little box in my feed reader.
You may be surprised to learn that the definition of 'production' is very much locally defined. To some companies I've dealt with, ancient stable software that gets no maintenance for years is the way to go. To others, driving the leading edge means competitive advantage. Most fall somewhere in the middle.
With the current implementation and just the 'autodefrag' option added to default, there is no perceptable difference in performance compared to ext4 for any of our machines, with any application. Recent testing at Phoronix (with 3.4) has btrfs getting closer to ext4 (running without lvm2 and md raid); I'm curious to see how its numbers look in 3.5. However, because btrfs integrates the functionality of lvm2 and md raid in a much more usable manner, as well as providing much more functionality, a small performance tradeoff would be acceptable (to me).
It depends on your definition of 'broke'. You don't have any of the functionality in the newer kernels (tens of thousands of patches to current), so if you want to use any of that it certainly is 'broke'. :)
Crap, replied to the wrong thread.
I accidentally replied to the wrong thread. Repost:
Btrfs is stable enough for real data, if you run current releases (latest 3.4 or 3.5 kernel and btrfs-progs-19 current). I use it in both single drive systems and raid1 configurations with Fedora 17. Prior to converting the systems, I ran extensive failure testing (e.g., pulling power / data connection during active writes, system crashes, using a failing drive with media errors as part of a raid1, etc.) for about a month. I never lost a single byte of data in any test, confirmed by checksum scans on all data (against a backup) after each test cycle.
I actually trust btrfs now more than ext4 due to the ability to scrub the data and confirm integrity, which I do daily or weekly depending on the system.
Btrfs is stable enough for real data, if you run current releases (latest 3.4 or 3.5 kernel and btrfs-progs-19 current). I use it in both single drive systems and raid1 configurations with Fedora 17. Prior to converting the systems, I ran extensive failure testing (e.g., pulling power / data connection during active writes, system crashes, using a failing drive with media errors as part of a raid1, etc.) for about a month. I never lost a single byte of data in any test, confirmed by checksum scans on all data (against a backup) after each test cycle.
I actually trust btrfs now more than ext4 due to the ability to scrub the data and confirm integrity, which I do daily or weekly depending on the system.
My main issue with the device is that they crippled the openess to include something that no one in this target group actually wants - 1080p video.
Unless you want to run XBMC, and turn a dumb TV into a smartTV for $25.
This "crippled piece of shit" can, among thousands of other things, run XBMC and output 1080p video, turning and dumb TV into a smartTV. Not too shabby for $25.
It may be obvious to us techy-types, but it's nice to see that it's not only us that sees it that way. I wonder if it'll affect the other litigation against the Galaxy Nexus? Pretty sure that same patent is used in that case.
It doesn't take a techy to see it's obvious. They've had slide to unlock mechanical bolts on doors and cabinets for centuries. Animating a physical device doesn't make it newly patentable.
XBMC on a small 1080p capable system (even a $35 Raspberry Pi will do), XBMC Remote on an Android device as the remote control, and optionally a file server for locally stored content. The library for movies and TV season DVDs. We cut the cord years ago.
The open source radeon driver is working flawlessly on my systems. Tear-free video, full Linux functionality, and acceptable 3D performance for light gaming. If you're having trouble with the open source driver, try LinuxQuestions.org.
All that's needed is for Nvidia to release the documentation on the components they manufacture, as AMD/ATI did in 2008 (and Intel has always done).
This is probably impossible too. nVidia and Direct3D were basically the same thing in DirectX6, which nVidia helped to create. Had to do with the Xbox, whose internal, original, concept name was DirectX-box. It is likely that nVidia can't release info on their hardware without running afoul of Microsoft.
Assuming that is correct, there will still be functionality not covered by joint patents that is problematic for nouveau. Power management, fan control, re-clocking, Optimus, etc. are areas where implementation details would be useful to shorten the pain of reverse engineering reliable functionality.
Posting anon because I've already modded this thread - I've clearly been way too far out of the loop for way too long. Is this to say that ATI is now the Linux-friendly manufacturer whereas NVidia is not? I thought that in the past, NVidia had the lead by way of better drivers, better stability, and VDPAU. Did ATI/AMD leapfrog ahead or is NVidia still the better way to go when building a PC with the intention of running Linux on it?
ATI/AMD's New Open-Source Strategy Explained:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=826&num=1
AMD Releases 900+ Pages Of GPU Specs:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjA1Mw
AMD Releases Additional R600 GPU Programming Documentation:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=960&num=1
AMD Releases 3D Programming Documentation:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_tcore_release&num=1
It's unnecessary, and likely impossible, for Nvidia to open source its proprietary driver, due to licensed software they don't own (they have stated in the past). All that's needed is for Nvidia to release the documentation on the components they manufacture, as AMD/ATI did in 2008 (and Intel has always done). The existing nouveau driver team will take it from there. Nvidia can also choose to provide funding, salaried developers, or sample cards for the team. That would put them in a parity position with AMD and Intel.
They didn't say slower, they said as needed. Since they are already releasing 'out of band' they are just normalizing that process. They will release when they have fixes / function instead of on an arbitrary timeline. It seems to make perfect sense.
Oh my goodness, because I live in Australia I have to wait a week before seeing a TV show? How do I manage? Sometimes I can't quite believe the world we live in.
The week delay wouldn't matter if everyone weren't connected via instant communication. Fans discuss shows online, so those that get it first start spilling spoilers all over the place. It's easier for many to go offline for a few hours and get the download, than it is to stay offline for a week (or months in the case of some shows). The regional delay in distribution is killing TV/Cable networks, yet they insist on holding on to the antiquated distribution methodology.
I think the GP wanted to say that this is a silly display of Internet entitlement mentality. Your response is yes it is serious because of spoilers on the Internet. Thanks for the good laugh buddy.
Somehow people do manage to enjoy TV shows and movies that are not steaming fresh out of the oven, and I hear people even manage to read books at their own leisure without being poked in the eye by spoilers at every turn. It's a great mystery how this is all possible I guess.
Your argument condenses down to entertainment content has no value. I agree. Piracy is, as a result, a non-issue.
Most articles I've seen indicate that rotational storage (and existing flash-based SSDs) will be replaced within 2 years by memristor-based storage or similar non-rotational, non-flash storage. It makes no sense for hard drive manufacturers to "race to the bottom" when they've already consolidated into 2 major manufacturers and sales have such a short term outlook.
NTP does not require access to public networks. Private time servers, usually GPS sourced via rooftop antennas, are very common.
No. The problem is that you cannot obtain this show without also paying for every other HBO show, and also paying for a cable subscription and DVR. If you need a car analogy, it's like having to buy a stocked dealership when all you want is a Toyota Prius.