Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Btrfs May Be The Default File-System In Ubuntu 10.10

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    69

    Default

    I read the headline and about shit a brick. However, after reading the criteria, the decision to explore btrfs doesn't seem that bad. This is the kind of thing that Canonical should be doing. A release LTS+1 (i.e. 10.10) should be very ambitious and include all kinds of shiny, new features like Fedora does. LTS+2 (i.e. 11.04) should also include lots of new features but maybe focus on UI or something that doesn't require as much coordination with upstream. LTS+3 (i.e. 11.10) shouldn't really change underlying architecture (like default file system), but should still pull in all the newest point releases and UI should be polished. That will set them up for a great development cycle for the next LTS. They can focus on polish and stability since they have made all their major architectural changes ~2 releases ago.
    This development cycle would develop some the great bleeding-edge improvements that Fedora typically includes, and it still has is able to stabilize into a great LTS release like RHEL.
    The downside to this is that for many average users that LTS+1 release might be kind of ugly.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbrown96 View Post
    I read the headline and about shit a brick. However, after reading the criteria, the decision to explore btrfs doesn't seem that bad. This is the kind of thing that Canonical should be doing. A release LTS+1 (i.e. 10.10) should be very ambitious and include all kinds of shiny, new features like Fedora does. LTS+2 (i.e. 11.04) should also include lots of new features but maybe focus on UI or something that doesn't require as much coordination with upstream. LTS+3 (i.e. 11.10) shouldn't really change underlying architecture (like default file system), but should still pull in all the newest point releases and UI should be polished. That will set them up for a great development cycle for the next LTS. They can focus on polish and stability since they have made all their major architectural changes ~2 releases ago.
    This development cycle would develop some the great bleeding-edge improvements that Fedora typically includes, and it still has is able to stabilize into a great LTS release like RHEL.
    The downside to this is that for many average users that LTS+1 release might be kind of ugly.
    I like your ideas.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Is there a program (or any plans to develop one) that can mount Btrfs volumes in Windows, like ext2ifs?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wea0 View Post
    Is there a program (or any plans to develop one) that can mount Btrfs volumes in Windows, like ext2ifs?
    I can only think of colinux...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    147

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by jbrown96 View Post
    I read the headline and about shit a brick. However, after reading the criteria, the decision to explore btrfs doesn't seem that bad. This is the kind of thing that Canonical should be doing. A release LTS+1 (i.e. 10.10) should be very ambitious and include all kinds of shiny, new features like Fedora does. LTS+2 (i.e. 11.04) should also include lots of new features but maybe focus on UI or something that doesn't require as much coordination with upstream. LTS+3 (i.e. 11.10) shouldn't really change underlying architecture (like default file system), but should still pull in all the newest point releases and UI should be polished. That will set them up for a great development cycle for the next LTS. They can focus on polish and stability since they have made all their major architectural changes ~2 releases ago.
    This development cycle would develop some the great bleeding-edge improvements that Fedora typically includes, and it still has is able to stabilize into a great LTS release like RHEL.
    The downside to this is that for many average users that LTS+1 release might be kind of ugly.
    I also like this.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    358

    Default

    btrfs has at least one feature that is interesting for pretty much everyone: snapshots. A feature that is sorely missing from Linux filesystems, while other operating systems like FreeBSD provide it for a long time already.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jbrown96 View Post
    I read the headline and about shit a brick. However, after reading the criteria, the decision to explore btrfs doesn't seem that bad. This is the kind of thing that Canonical should be doing. A release LTS+1 (i.e. 10.10) should be very ambitious and include all kinds of shiny, new features like Fedora does. LTS+2 (i.e. 11.04) should also include lots of new features but maybe focus on UI or something that doesn't require as much coordination with upstream. LTS+3 (i.e. 11.10) shouldn't really change underlying architecture (like default file system), but should still pull in all the newest point releases and UI should be polished. That will set them up for a great development cycle for the next LTS. They can focus on polish and stability since they have made all their major architectural changes ~2 releases ago.
    This development cycle would develop some the great bleeding-edge improvements that Fedora typically includes, and it still has is able to stabilize into a great LTS release like RHEL.
    The downside to this is that for many average users that LTS+1 release might be kind of ugly.
    Or how about going back to the days when alpha, beta, release candidate and release actually meant what they said? LTS+1, LTS+2 and LTS+3 are all basically alpha and beta crap and shouldn't be considered releases.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brent View Post
    btrfs has at least one feature that is interesting for pretty much everyone: snapshots. A feature that is sorely missing from Linux filesystems, while other operating systems like FreeBSD provide it for a long time already.
    you talk as LVM was not readily avaiable to every linux user

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    358

    Default

    Since they are filesystem agnostic, LVM snapshots are not very flexible and performance is bad. Sorry, but they aren't a viable option.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,577

    Default

    "LVM has the ability to create a snapshot of a logical volume, which is like an instant copy of the original. Changes to the snapshot are not visible in the original and vice versa. This is done by using a technique called copy-on-write (COW)" Well, yeah, apparently LVM can do COW too.

Posting Permissions

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