Dismissing the two biggest players in the industry as not cutting edge, despite the fact that they aren't abandoning it out of conservatism (Ubuntu isn't anyway) doesn't paint it as "the future".
Especially giving that ZFS is further in development, more actively developed and has a more advanced roadmap, I question if btrfs is the same kind of "future" as Clean Coal or a slightly more efficient car, etc. If btrfs is the future, you're going to have a hard time convincing people of it.
We don't need some awkward bastard child of paper and tablet/phone.
You may not. That's no reason not to develop it in case someone does want one. People said the same thing about the original Surface, a form factor which has now been wildly successful.
Please MS, please stick to what you know
They have been incredibly successful at creating markets for new devices, enough to make every manufacturer add another form factor to their lineup and enough to scare Apple into giving up on one of the original core premises of the iPad (a tablet should not need a stylus).
Apparently Google judged the burn-in on their displays in line with the industry despite problems being reported in the first few weeks where as industry standard is for the situation to be unnoticeable for several years.
Apparently the screen is fine but we'll make software changes to make the totally not problematic screen less likely to cause a problem which totally doesn't exist in the first place.
Apparently Google's answer to problems with display colours changing with viewing angles are a software update to make them more saturated?
Like what the heck? Why not just give customers the middle finger? At least there would be less reading involved.
Where is the science that says the current global average temperature is optimal?
Literally in every agricultural study ever made. Oh wait you said optimal without defining optimal? Optimal for whom?
Our choices of where to live, how to survive there, where to grow food, how to get it around was based on the assumption that the climate is what it is, without plans to move population centres, production centres or anything elsewhere.
Where's the research that the current temperature is optimal? In every test, study and example conducted since humans stopped being nomads.
Correction: I have sat down and read all your links in detail. All of the claims that ZFS scrubbing will destroy your pool on non-ECC RAM is actually garbage which doesn't take into account the actual failure mechanism of the RAM or the response of the scrub which is to leave data untouched if an unfixable error occurs. So scrub away.
GP was right, there is no special hardware requirements for ZFS and you should have no problem letting him administer your sensitive data.
Why? All the articles you link to describe one failure mode which is not only theoretical but all can be avoided by simply not scrubbing the pool. No one is forcing you to do that, and you can run ZFS just as happily as any other file system with non-ECC RAM and still get some of the benefits including the filesystem potentially alerting you to failing RAM rather than silently screwing your system as it would with any other filesystem.
You can't mirror a 4TB drive, say, with 2x2TB drives spanned to present as a 4TB device.
Err yes you can. You just really shouldn't given you're doubling the failure rate of one of the vdevs, and also hosing the flexibility of ZFS which would at best benefit from using all three drives in a single RAIDZ and upgrading them on failure at which point your pool automatically grows to the lowest sized drive.
You can do whatever you want. ZFS won't stop you from turning your hardware into an maintainable mess. The fact that you CAN do this in ZFS I see it as a huge downside. The only end result here will be you posting in a forum a few years down the line for help trying to get your pool recovered after a hardware failure and a bunch of people asking you why the heck you set it up like that.
Yeah let's give a hurrah to those doing their normal jobs doing basic. Fuck those people going out of their way.
Can you please list some of your achievements so we can all take a turn in shitting on them too? It sounds like fun and makes me feel like I have a bigger penis.
When motivation perfectly aligns with a practically ideal solution the hero will be labelled a villain regardless of what happens.
But I am keen to hear a better site proposed. Given a country that is suffering from a devastating storm there are a few effects at play: - destroyed sanitation - damaged food in circulation - dead plant and animal matter - hazards everywhere.
Frankly he should be criticised if he *didn't* pick a hospital as priority one.
A wash for carbon emissions. On the other hand moving pollution away from the population centre has untold benefits even if the emissions would be worse.
19 years ago we had seat belts, crumple zones, airbags, ABS brakes, and some even had traction control.
Yes. They were called value added features. (not the seatbelts or the cumple zones but the rest of the list yes). Actually 21 years ago there was only one single company that provided ABS standard on all their vehicles.
Most of the rest of the "safety features" like lane departure, rear and front sensors, automatic braking, etc. are almost purely for distracted and poor drivers
Yes except for the continued improvements. "Crumple Zones" isn't a thing or a not thing. they vary and have been improved immensely over the years. We got airbags now in various places other than the steering wheel (because screw the other passengers 19 years ago), airbags were expensive.
Forgetting that traction control has changed from something that worked a bit on some gravel to showing great improvements on ice.
then it's highly unlikely that a newer vehicle would make him a safer driver than he already is.
I'm a perfectly safe driver. But the newer vehicle makes me much safer because of all the other idiots on the road. I'll be kind: I would rather get T-boned in the driver side door in a modern car than even a 10 year old car. That's to say nothing of a 19 year old car. (Let me guess you still think pillar strength is the same and hasn't changed over the last 20 years?)
That would be insignificant if anyone else other than SUSE was throwing anything behind btrfs. btrfs seems to be losing favour ever since Ubuntu decided to change their roadmap from potentially including to btrfs as a default to declaring it outright experimental with the current roadmap favouring zfs as the future default.
By support being dropped I don't mean technical support or official support, I mean that the major vendors (other than SUSE) are no longer supporting the idea of btrfs becoming the next gen default filesystem for Linux. At least Ubuntu is doing something, Debian placed their arse firmly on the fence, Google have dropped the idea of btrfs on Android due to the lack of native encryption so that was a feature based decision, but RedHat's drop back to XFS seems particularly bizarre. Mind you the entire Red Hat situation in general is given that Oracle themselves also favour btrfs on their Linux distribution which is built on Red Hat's kernel.
It used to be that btrfs was the future filesystem while ZFS was a license encumbered also ran. Now that has flipped around, and Red Hat's decision is just one of a couple of votes of no confidence.
It's also likely easier to do carbon sequestration and to filter particulates from a large industrial installation than from a few million tiny portable generators.
You would think so but on a social level it's actually not. Firstly every attempt to sequester carbon has failed miserably. Hell there have been brand new coal power plants opening in the EU which have all sorts of great stats: Massive government co-funding to trial CCS which has so far failed to materialise even a single plant that sequesters carbon, lawsuits between governments and operators to recapture funding from the failed promises, hell MPP3 (the latest and greatest in clean coal) opened in the Netherlands last year and e.on instantly wiped 2.5bn euro off their value and are borderline being nonviable.
as if you run a real time system and painfully notice every nanosecond
If we did then KDE wouldn't be the only thing being complained about. You don't need sub nanosecond performance to shed the "bloat" label, but really let's try and get within 6 orders of magnitude of that first.
If KDE is so bloated and terrible, why is it that it has never been forked
The answer lies in the question. Just ask the X.org team if they had a time-machine would they have forked or just gone straight to rip and replace. A lot of people got a lot of grey hairs doing this.
yet there's what, 3? 4? GNOME forks going, most of which were sparked by GNOME being such a clusterf*** to build.
Err no. Most of the GNOME forks got going when GNOME turned from "good desktop" into "unmitigated fucking disaster".
ONE KDE environment is "bizarre and confusing" but 4 GNOME environments are not? Biased much dude?
One KDE environment which is a direct clone of another, vs 4 GNOME environments all very VERY different from both each. DEs are more than their names.
I played with zfs-fuse on KDE Neon a couple years ago after reading from its acolytes that it was "more advanced" and "better" than EXT4 or Btrfs.
They should have mentioned no such thing. ZFS-Fuse was a shitty work around to a licensing issue that many people are still arguing may not actually be real. It has effectively been undeveloped for many years and also as a fuse module was not capable of implementing the entire ZFS stack as required.
Switching to btrfs from zfs-fuse has nothing to do with ZFS itself. You just switched from the worst option to the second best. btrfs is still preferable to ext4 in my opinion, but it doesn't hold a candle to ZFS in performance, maturity, support, and active development.
ZFS is also "already available" on Linux and has been for several years. By comparison btrfs is still in diapers, and currently support has been dropped by all major linux vendors save for SUSE, and whatever the fuck Oracal is doing in the Linux world right now (trying to appear relevant).
ZFS is more mature and in far more active development.
That's like saying ext4 is redundant because ext2 exists. Just because parts of ZFS serve the same function as parts in all places of the Linux I/O stack, doesn't make it comparable or redundant.
Actually the only word I would use is "better" given the feature list.
ZFS wants to live in a fairly specific configuration.
ZFS wants nothing, but many of its advanced features require certain configuration. You want to run it with 12 drives, 32GB of RAM on a simple file server, go for it, it really shines. You want to run it on a single drive on a system with 2GB of RAM, go for it, there's no downsides there vs any other file system.
It's really a NAS filesystem, which is why there are no recovery utilities for it.
There's no recovery utilities because they are rarely needed. The single most common configuration involves redundancy. ZFS's own tools include those required to fix zdb errors and recover data on a block level if you ever get to that stage. The system itself is its own recovery system with native checksumming and error correction, snapshotting, and really simple ways to duplicate / backup pools. It's like complaining that there's no GUIs available for windows because windows fundamentally includes one.
but you are incurring a bunch of overhead
The only overheads are copy-on-write overheads. You'll start seeing these with every modern filesystem eventually. The result is that small file writes and deletes become expensive. Standard read and write operations are just as fast as any other competing filesystem.
Slashdot Mirror
btrfs is still the future
For whom?
Dismissing the two biggest players in the industry as not cutting edge, despite the fact that they aren't abandoning it out of conservatism (Ubuntu isn't anyway) doesn't paint it as "the future".
Especially giving that ZFS is further in development, more actively developed and has a more advanced roadmap, I question if btrfs is the same kind of "future" as Clean Coal or a slightly more efficient car, etc. If btrfs is the future, you're going to have a hard time convincing people of it.
Yeah just like the iPad Pro.
We don't need some awkward bastard child of paper and tablet/phone.
You may not. That's no reason not to develop it in case someone does want one. People said the same thing about the original Surface, a form factor which has now been wildly successful.
Please MS, please stick to what you know
They have been incredibly successful at creating markets for new devices, enough to make every manufacturer add another form factor to their lineup and enough to scare Apple into giving up on one of the original core premises of the iPad (a tablet should not need a stylus).
It would seem that the newer OLED panels suffer more from burn-in than LED.
They do nothing of the sort. It would only seem that specific lemon panels from a specific manufacturer (LG) suffer from burn-in problems.
Burn-in that isn't permanent and which is fixed without burning adjacent pixels is called a design defect and not a feature of OLED technology.
Apparently Google judged the burn-in on their displays in line with the industry despite problems being reported in the first few weeks where as industry standard is for the situation to be unnoticeable for several years.
Apparently the screen is fine but we'll make software changes to make the totally not problematic screen less likely to cause a problem which totally doesn't exist in the first place.
Apparently Google's answer to problems with display colours changing with viewing angles are a software update to make them more saturated?
Like what the heck? Why not just give customers the middle finger? At least there would be less reading involved.
I don't think anyone with a brain ever said those things
You'd be wrong, depending on how far back in time you look.
Where is the science that says the current global average temperature is optimal?
Literally in every agricultural study ever made. Oh wait you said optimal without defining optimal? Optimal for whom?
Our choices of where to live, how to survive there, where to grow food, how to get it around was based on the assumption that the climate is what it is, without plans to move population centres, production centres or anything elsewhere.
Where's the research that the current temperature is optimal? In every test, study and example conducted since humans stopped being nomads.
Correction: I have sat down and read all your links in detail. All of the claims that ZFS scrubbing will destroy your pool on non-ECC RAM is actually garbage which doesn't take into account the actual failure mechanism of the RAM or the response of the scrub which is to leave data untouched if an unfixable error occurs. So scrub away.
GP was right, there is no special hardware requirements for ZFS and you should have no problem letting him administer your sensitive data.
Why? All the articles you link to describe one failure mode which is not only theoretical but all can be avoided by simply not scrubbing the pool. No one is forcing you to do that, and you can run ZFS just as happily as any other file system with non-ECC RAM and still get some of the benefits including the filesystem potentially alerting you to failing RAM rather than silently screwing your system as it would with any other filesystem.
You can't mirror a 4TB drive, say, with 2x2TB drives spanned to present as a 4TB device.
Err yes you can. You just really shouldn't given you're doubling the failure rate of one of the vdevs, and also hosing the flexibility of ZFS which would at best benefit from using all three drives in a single RAIDZ and upgrading them on failure at which point your pool automatically grows to the lowest sized drive.
You can do whatever you want. ZFS won't stop you from turning your hardware into an maintainable mess. The fact that you CAN do this in ZFS I see it as a huge downside. The only end result here will be you posting in a forum a few years down the line for help trying to get your pool recovered after a hardware failure and a bunch of people asking you why the heck you set it up like that.
Good stuff, submit it to Slashdot then shit on their efforts too.
Yeah let's give a hurrah to those doing their normal jobs doing basic. Fuck those people going out of their way.
Can you please list some of your achievements so we can all take a turn in shitting on them too? It sounds like fun and makes me feel like I have a bigger penis.
Musk didn't "get" power to a hospital. He created power at a hospital. Comparing it to repairing a few trunks in existing infrastructure is childish.
I assume the only reason you're shitting on Musk's achievements is because you lack any of your own?
regardless of his motivation
When motivation perfectly aligns with a practically ideal solution the hero will be labelled a villain regardless of what happens.
But I am keen to hear a better site proposed. Given a country that is suffering from a devastating storm there are a few effects at play:
- destroyed sanitation
- damaged food in circulation
- dead plant and animal matter
- hazards everywhere.
Frankly he should be criticised if he *didn't* pick a hospital as priority one.
Clearly, a site chosen at random for power restoration...
Just to turn your cynical remark on its head, what kind of brain dead idiot would chose a site at random?
electric vehicles are a wash
A wash for carbon emissions. On the other hand moving pollution away from the population centre has untold benefits even if the emissions would be worse.
19 years ago we had seat belts, crumple zones, airbags, ABS brakes, and some even had traction control.
Yes. They were called value added features. (not the seatbelts or the cumple zones but the rest of the list yes). Actually 21 years ago there was only one single company that provided ABS standard on all their vehicles.
Most of the rest of the "safety features" like lane departure, rear and front sensors, automatic braking, etc. are almost purely for distracted and poor drivers
Yes except for the continued improvements. "Crumple Zones" isn't a thing or a not thing. they vary and have been improved immensely over the years. We got airbags now in various places other than the steering wheel (because screw the other passengers 19 years ago), airbags were expensive.
Forgetting that traction control has changed from something that worked a bit on some gravel to showing great improvements on ice.
then it's highly unlikely that a newer vehicle would make him a safer driver than he already is.
I'm a perfectly safe driver. But the newer vehicle makes me much safer because of all the other idiots on the road. I'll be kind: I would rather get T-boned in the driver side door in a modern car than even a 10 year old car. That's to say nothing of a 19 year old car. (Let me guess you still think pillar strength is the same and hasn't changed over the last 20 years?)
Sorry, facts are so inconvenient, aint they..
This! Facts are very inconvenient .... and you are incredibly inconvenienced.
That would be insignificant if anyone else other than SUSE was throwing anything behind btrfs. btrfs seems to be losing favour ever since Ubuntu decided to change their roadmap from potentially including to btrfs as a default to declaring it outright experimental with the current roadmap favouring zfs as the future default.
By support being dropped I don't mean technical support or official support, I mean that the major vendors (other than SUSE) are no longer supporting the idea of btrfs becoming the next gen default filesystem for Linux. At least Ubuntu is doing something, Debian placed their arse firmly on the fence, Google have dropped the idea of btrfs on Android due to the lack of native encryption so that was a feature based decision, but RedHat's drop back to XFS seems particularly bizarre. Mind you the entire Red Hat situation in general is given that Oracle themselves also favour btrfs on their Linux distribution which is built on Red Hat's kernel.
It used to be that btrfs was the future filesystem while ZFS was a license encumbered also ran. Now that has flipped around, and Red Hat's decision is just one of a couple of votes of no confidence.
It's also likely easier to do carbon sequestration and to filter particulates from a large industrial installation than from a few million tiny portable generators.
You would think so but on a social level it's actually not.
Firstly every attempt to sequester carbon has failed miserably. Hell there have been brand new coal power plants opening in the EU which have all sorts of great stats: Massive government co-funding to trial CCS which has so far failed to materialise even a single plant that sequesters carbon, lawsuits between governments and operators to recapture funding from the failed promises, hell MPP3 (the latest and greatest in clean coal) opened in the Netherlands last year and e.on instantly wiped 2.5bn euro off their value and are borderline being nonviable.
as if you run a real time system and painfully notice every nanosecond
If we did then KDE wouldn't be the only thing being complained about. You don't need sub nanosecond performance to shed the "bloat" label, but really let's try and get within 6 orders of magnitude of that first.
If KDE is so bloated and terrible, why is it that it has never been forked
The answer lies in the question. Just ask the X.org team if they had a time-machine would they have forked or just gone straight to rip and replace. A lot of people got a lot of grey hairs doing this.
yet there's what, 3? 4? GNOME forks going, most of which were sparked by GNOME being such a clusterf*** to build.
Err no. Most of the GNOME forks got going when GNOME turned from "good desktop" into "unmitigated fucking disaster".
ONE KDE environment is "bizarre and confusing" but 4 GNOME environments are not? Biased much dude?
One KDE environment which is a direct clone of another, vs 4 GNOME environments all very VERY different from both each. DEs are more than their names.
I played with zfs-fuse on KDE Neon a couple years ago after reading from its acolytes that it was "more advanced" and "better" than EXT4 or Btrfs.
They should have mentioned no such thing. ZFS-Fuse was a shitty work around to a licensing issue that many people are still arguing may not actually be real. It has effectively been undeveloped for many years and also as a fuse module was not capable of implementing the entire ZFS stack as required.
Switching to btrfs from zfs-fuse has nothing to do with ZFS itself. You just switched from the worst option to the second best. btrfs is still preferable to ext4 in my opinion, but it doesn't hold a candle to ZFS in performance, maturity, support, and active development.
ZFS is also "already available" on Linux and has been for several years. By comparison btrfs is still in diapers, and currently support has been dropped by all major linux vendors save for SUSE, and whatever the fuck Oracal is doing in the Linux world right now (trying to appear relevant).
ZFS is more mature and in far more active development.
Probably ALL aspects of it.
That's like saying ext4 is redundant because ext2 exists. Just because parts of ZFS serve the same function as parts in all places of the Linux I/O stack, doesn't make it comparable or redundant.
Actually the only word I would use is "better" given the feature list.
ZFS wants to live in a fairly specific configuration.
ZFS wants nothing, but many of its advanced features require certain configuration. You want to run it with 12 drives, 32GB of RAM on a simple file server, go for it, it really shines. You want to run it on a single drive on a system with 2GB of RAM, go for it, there's no downsides there vs any other file system.
It's really a NAS filesystem, which is why there are no recovery utilities for it.
There's no recovery utilities because they are rarely needed. The single most common configuration involves redundancy. ZFS's own tools include those required to fix zdb errors and recover data on a block level if you ever get to that stage. The system itself is its own recovery system with native checksumming and error correction, snapshotting, and really simple ways to duplicate / backup pools. It's like complaining that there's no GUIs available for windows because windows fundamentally includes one.
but you are incurring a bunch of overhead
The only overheads are copy-on-write overheads. You'll start seeing these with every modern filesystem eventually. The result is that small file writes and deletes become expensive. Standard read and write operations are just as fast as any other competing filesystem.