Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Btrfs System Rollbacks In Fedora 13

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,636

    Default Btrfs System Rollbacks In Fedora 13

    Phoronix: Btrfs System Rollbacks In Fedora 13

    One of the benefits of Btrfs besides offering competitive performance against other Linux file-systems and SSD optimizations is its support for sub-volumes and writable snapshots. While Btrfs is still in development and is not yet used as a default file-system by any Linux distribution, Red Hat has been looking to capitalize upon the capabilities of Btrfs by introducing support for system rollbacks into Fedora. The Btrfs-based system rollback support has been a feature for Fedora 13 so with the release of the Fedora 13 Beta earlier this week we decided to further investigate this feature.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14793

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    344

    Default low callorie but tastes the same

    Great to see them embracing it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    145

    Default Space efficiency, competition to time Machine

    Do these snapshots store the entire filesystem or only a diff to what has changed since the previous snapshot? A diff would be better because it would save space. I think that's what Apple's Time machine does.

    By the way, how far is Redhat from making a competitor to Apple's Time Machine with this BRFS rollback?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stan View Post
    Do these snapshots store the entire filesystem or only a diff to what has changed since the previous snapshot?
    I believe btrs snapshots are essentially the same as ZFS, so when you write to a file which exists in a snapshot the old data block is left in the snapshot and not freed. Hence if you have a snapshot with 20GB file and later update a 4k block in that file, then only that 4k block has to be stored in the live copy of the filesystem... for the rest of that 20GB file it will read the same blocks that exist in the snapshot.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    I believe btrs snapshots are essentially the same as ZFS, so when you write to a file which exists in a snapshot the old data block is left in the snapshot and not freed. Hence if you have a snapshot with 20GB file and later update a 4k block in that file, then only that 4k block has to be stored in the live copy of the filesystem... for the rest of that 20GB file it will read the same blocks that exist in the snapshot.
    Aha, so if the user changes 4k since the previous snapshot, the next snapshot will require only 4k of additional space on a backup drive. Sounds good! Thanks for the explanation.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,332

    Default

    Or if a cosmic particle changes some bits in the main part, all rollbacks are screwed.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    Or if a cosmic particle changes some bits in the main part, all rollbacks are screwed.
    If you want data integrity with localised bit errors, then you can set up a RAID mirror. I believe btrfs checksums data blocks, so it should be able to determine which one is wrong.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stan View Post
    Do these snapshots store the entire filesystem or only a diff to what has changed since the previous snapshot? A diff would be better because it would save space. I think that's what Apple's Time machine does.

    By the way, how far is Redhat from making a competitor to Apple's Time Machine with this BRFS rollback?
    It's called copy-on-write

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,806

    Default

    Also unless otherwise defined Btrfs snapshots are very similar to normal Btrfs subvolumes and can be written on.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4

    Default

    I'm gonna miss ZFS when Oracle screws Sun up, but assuming btrfs is COW and does checksums for each block (and has nifty stuff like integrated compression, share(nfs|smb|iscsi), et al.) I guess I'll survive..

    ps: does btrfs have integrated dedup? OpenSolaris ZFS has it IIRC.. At least for the time being..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •