Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Testing The "Pretty Beefy" Btrfs Changes In Linux 3.2

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,673

    Default Testing The "Pretty Beefy" Btrfs Changes In Linux 3.2

    Phoronix: Testing The "Pretty Beefy" Btrfs Changes In Linux 3.2

    Among many other enhancements and alterations, the Linux 3.2 kernel, the Btrfs file-system has some "pretty beefy" changes. Btrfs in Linux 3.2 merges in some long-standing Btrfs branches with new capabilities.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16773

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    841

    Default

    I wish it was finally marked as "stable".
    And: Is there any benchmark to test reliability of a FS?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Its quite sad to watch btrfs progressing.
    It has been in development for a few years now, however still even lacks a consistency checker, shows often suboptimal performance in real-world use and tends to degrade over time.
    I lost data two times, because a btrfs-partition couldn't be mounted from one day to another.

    Guess it will take another 2-3 years until btrfs is ready to replace ext4.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Linuxhippy View Post
    It has been in development for a few years now, however still even lacks a consistency checker, shows often suboptimal performance in real-world use and tends to degrade over time.
    As far as I understand, they have actively refused to deliver inconsistent filesystem checker for sole reason of not wanting that bad first impression.
    This way or another, ext4, xfs or even raiser3 are still options to utilize depending on FS task.
    Its pretty bad Oracle refused to release ZFS under more liberal license, same reason why OpenOffice got forked, I guess thats because a lot of people do not appreciate Oracle.
    It would be no wonder, if ZFS will be pushed under BSD or GPL(less possible) the day BTRFS gets stable.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    As far as I understand, they have actively refused to deliver inconsistent filesystem checker for sole reason of not wanting that bad first impression.
    This way or another, ext4, xfs or even raiser3 are still options to utilize depending on FS task.
    Its pretty bad Oracle refused to release ZFS under more liberal license, same reason why OpenOffice got forked, I guess thats because a lot of people do not appreciate Oracle.
    It would be no wonder, if ZFS will be pushed under BSD or GPL(less possible) the day BTRFS gets stable.
    Except that there is no point for Oracle in doing that. They are the main developers of both ZFS and BTRFS.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adarion View Post
    I wish it was finally marked as "stable".
    And: Is there any benchmark to test reliability of a FS?
    The "let it be used for 5 years in the enterprise, watch news headlines" bench is a pretty good one. If you need faster results, start a long disk test and periodically yank out the power cord.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Hehe, you're probably right there. But pulling the power cord or sudden power loss most times resulted in drama here.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    "Rome wasn't built in a day"

    Seriously, I use XFS, XFS has been around for over 16 years now, they're still improving it and fixing bugs.

    BtrFS has been around for all of like a few years now, it's still incredibly new, some things it does have never even been done before. Back off and quit complaining that it's "Not done yet" every few days. Please?

    It'll be ready when it is ready, in the mean time be thankful that any Linux file system beats what Microsoft and Apple push.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    100

    Default

    That's something that's always interested me, you only see the Linux filesystems compared against themselves.
    How do they stack up against NTFS?
    With the NTFS module in the kernel, it would be possible to add comparative benchmarks to this wouldn't it?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboJ1M View Post
    That's something that's always interested me, you only see the Linux filesystems compared against themselves.
    How do they stack up against NTFS?
    With the NTFS module in the kernel, it would be possible to add comparative benchmarks to this wouldn't it?
    Who needs NTFS?!
    For normal use there is ntfs3g and ntfs in-kernel drivers. For both the performance is just adequate to drag and drop stuff for compatibility.
    If you think about using NTFS professionally, you should first clear its legal status; then you will probably be looking into commercial driver. Defragmentation and inconsistency issues included.

Posting Permissions

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