Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: LZ4 For Btrfs Arrives While Its FSCK Remains M.I.A.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,815

    Default LZ4 For Btrfs Arrives While Its FSCK Remains M.I.A.

    Phoronix: LZ4 For Btrfs Arrives While Its FSCK Remains M.I.A.

    The proper fsck utility for the Btrfs file-system remains M.I.A. while a contribution from an independent developer introduces LZ4 compression support to this next-generation Linux file-system...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA1OTQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Edinburgh, UK
    Posts
    53

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stikonas View Post
    For me, a branch that says "danger..dont ever use"...and a branch that doesn't compile on the latest stable kernel ( 3.2.6 ) .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stikonas View Post
    Going by the URL, it's dangerous and shouldn't ever be used.

    Hopefully that's a temporary thing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stikonas View Post
    Thanks for the link!

    That is interesting. Unless I'm missing something, those commits do not add full repair capability, but they do add a repair option that can fix extent allocation errors:

    "This also includes a new --repair btrfsck option. For now it can only fix errors in the extent allocation tree."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    574

    Default

    I won't be using BTRFS on any of my servers before mid 2013. I really can't trust it and most importantly I don't trust this "rush for the fsck utility". We don't need rush, we need stable things on servers, there is nothing to play when you manage data.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    152

    Default

    Fsck Btrfs. Seriously.

    I can't believe it's still not ready.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Compression is all nice and dandy, but I don't see Btrfs outperforming ext4 on most benchmarks even if they shave off a couple more percentage points from Btrfs+snappy.

    (That is not to deny there may be other features Btrfs provides that ext4 doesn't.)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bulletxt View Post
    I don't trust this "rush for the fsck utility". We don't need rush, we need stable things on servers, there is nothing to play when you manage data.
    It is hardly a rush. IIRC, btrfsck (with full repair capability) has been "coming soon" for more than a year now.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bastiaan View Post
    Compression is all nice and dandy, but I don't see Btrfs outperforming ext4 on most benchmarks even if they shave off a couple more percentage points from Btrfs+snappy.

    (That is not to deny there may be other features Btrfs provides that ext4 doesn't.)
    BTRFS has never been about speed, it's more about durability (data integrity), snapshotting and the capability to handle very large data sets. So IMHO it's not that much of a client FS and more of a stable server FS.

Posting Permissions

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