Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Btrfs Support For Ubuntu's Update Manager

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,805

    Default Btrfs Support For Ubuntu's Update Manager

    Phoronix: Btrfs Support For Ubuntu's Update Manager

    Eventually we will see Ubuntu Linux deploy Btrfs as the default file-system. While we will likely not see the switch from EXT4 to Btrfs with Ubuntu 11.10, there is work underway on Btrfs integration support into Ubuntu's Update Manager...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    396

    Default

    this is just awesome news.

    go butter !

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Great news! Anyone know if there's any release schedule yet for btrfs on RedHat Enterprise Linux?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default Buggy FS

    There's some strange bug with dpkg that makes BTRFS a horrible failure on Linux systems using it. It takes for freaking ever doing system updates and installing software if you choose a BTRFS FS. See bug here:

    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...ux/+bug/601299

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    158

    Default

    I'm only waiting for an fsck tool to use btrfs. It is important to have just in case, even if the fs is never supposed to need it. Snapshots are cute, but I'm really more interested in the other features, such as compression, SSD mode, online defrag, object mirror/stripping, space efficiency, etc.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Artemis3 View Post
    I'm only waiting for an fsck tool to use btrfs. It is important to have just in case, even if the fs is never supposed to need it. Snapshots are cute, but I'm really more interested in the other features, such as compression, SSD mode, online defrag, object mirror/stripping, space efficiency, etc.
    The way I understood it, BTRFS was supposed to duplicate all data of a volume in the background until I'm assuming more than 50% of that volume was used, then you'd no longer have that data redundancy there. In any case, it's supposed to be a safer place to keep your data than the other FSes, so that's my main interest, though the built-in RAID and other features are definitely awesome.

Posting Permissions

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