Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Unnecessary critical updates showing up in "Software Update" ?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: Unnecessary critical updates showing up in "Software Update"?

    On 2013-12-19 21:08, Carlos E. R. wrote:
    > On 2013-12-19 20:46, brickheap wrote:
    >
    >> The issue is disk space on the *-test machine-* I'm using. It went from
    >> 56% full to 72% after the last update.

    >
    > Are you using btrfs partitions?
    >
    > Either your test setup is too small, or you are using btrfs. The final
    > disk usage should be about the same.


    Mmmm. I didn't write it well. I meant that the final disk usage after a
    "mandatory update" is about the same, because the old package and the
    new replacement typically have the same size.

    However, btrfs automatically saves both copies, that's a feature.

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.
    (from 12.3 x86_64 "Dartmouth" at Telcontar)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    West Virginia Sector 13
    Posts
    15,742

    Default Re: Unnecessary critical updates showing up in "Software Update"?

    You should allow at least 2X the space you think you need if you use BTRFS with snapper on.

    Unless you just want to experiment I would recommend you stick with ext4. I have seen several reports here of systems with apparently failed BTRFS partitions with no real way to recover. ie fsck did not work. .

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    17,054

    Default Re: Unnecessary critical updates showing up in "Software Update" ?

    On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 04:56:02 +0000, gogalthorp wrote:

    > You should allow at least 2X the space you think you need if you use
    > BTRFS with snapper on.
    >
    > Unless you just want to experiment I would recommend you stick with
    > ext4. I have seen several reports here of systems with apparently failed
    > BTRFS partitions with no real way to recover. ie fsck did not work. .


    There was a very long discussion in the beta group about this - btrfs is
    much better now than it used to be, and recovery is not necessary very
    often. The discussion came up because the developers working on btrfs
    for openSUSE feel that there's a set of features that /is/ stable enough
    for production use. (and the intention, if btrfs had been selected as
    default, was to use only those features deemed production-ready).

    It's important to remember that anecdotal evidence is not data - and the
    data around btrfs seems to say that it is production ready, at least with
    a subset of features.

    See the thread in the beta group for more info, including discussion from
    one of the developers.

    Jim

    --
    Jim Henderson
    openSUSE Forums Administrator
    Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: Unnecessary critical updates showing up in "Software Update"?

    On 2013-12-20 06:08, Jim Henderson wrote:
    > It's important to remember that anecdotal evidence is not data - and the
    > data around btrfs seems to say that it is production ready, at least with
    > a subset of features.


    I know how to reliably crash an btrfs filesystem beyond repair... >:-)

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.
    (from 12.3 x86_64 "Dartmouth" at Telcontar)

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    12,607
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Unnecessary critical updates showing up in "Software Update"?

    Quote Originally Posted by robin_listas View Post
    I know how to reliably crash an btrfs filesystem beyond repair... >:-)
    LOL.

    Even without that, I wouldn't use "btrfs". Yes, it has nice features, but you have to do too much work to use them.

    Maybe it will one day be better integrated. For example, maybe all updating will be made to a snapshot, instead of to the running system, and the snapshot will become the running system after reboot. And maybe it will become possible to install the next version to a snapshot, which becomes available on reboot.

    There are lots of possibilities. But they require changes outside of "btrfs". Until some of those changes are in place, there is little benefit for the average user to go with "btrfs" (in my opinion).
    openSUSE Leap 15.1; KDE Plasma 5;
    testing Leap 15.2Alpha

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    17,054

    Default Re: Unnecessary critical updates showing up in "Software Update" ?

    On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:43:08 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:

    > On 2013-12-20 06:08, Jim Henderson wrote:
    >> It's important to remember that anecdotal evidence is not data - and
    >> the data around btrfs seems to say that it is production ready, at
    >> least with a subset of features.

    >
    > I know how to reliably crash an btrfs filesystem beyond repair... >:-)


    Good for you...I guess. I can reliably crash any filesystem with dd.
    [shrug]

    Have you submitted it as a bug? Seems like something someone might want
    to fix.

    Jim

    --
    Jim Henderson
    openSUSE Forums Administrator
    Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    VA, USA
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: Unnecessary critical updates showing up in "Software Update" ?

    I'll try to answer all replies in one posting.

    Thanks for your replies. (I didn't realize my 2nd post , #4, went thru, due to tech. errors, so I didn't check back).
    Your responses were very informative, particularly #10 (hendersj), which elaborates on some of the other postings related to the importance of glibc and keeping it updated. As a former software developer that makes sense.

    * I'm not familiar with zypper. I'll have to check it out. It's probably easy to understand that I'm not yet aware of all the different choices I have available to do updates. Seeing the screen screaming at me to do "important updates" compels me to just do it (memories of Windows OS "forced" compliance creeping back).

    * It's good to know that updates will not significantly affect disk space.

    * I'm using the EXT4 file system exclusively.
    * The partition I'm using is small. (10 GB for the "/" and 10 GB for "/home", of a 40 GB HDD). (this is a test system I'm using to refamiliarize myself with SuSE before I go and install it on my main rig).
    It's also easier to detect disk usage on a small HDD than a 1TB HDD.

    * My original posting came from a concern I have regarding a complete and total abandonment of Windows.
    Having seen most of my PC's suffer from increasing and crippling bloat of Win XP service packs (particularly SP3!, security updates, .NET runtimes, etc. has made me very cautious about the updates in Linux.
    Just looking to avoid "trading a $1 bill for 4 quarters".

    I'm trying to gauge the performance of SuSE on 1 of my most resource limited machines to predict the performance on those with more resources. So far, so good. I'll obviously be using the entire HDD , not just a partition.

    Most of my dozen or so PC's have volume licenses of Win XP on them, which will soon be obsolete,
    and I won't fall prey to replacing hardware just to accommodate Win 8. (clever collaborative marketing scheme). I have Win7 on 1 machine, which is enough.

    That being said, I was drawn back to SuSE by tinkering with the 11.0 on my P3-1000 (which runs incredibly well, even with KDE!). This was probably a mistake, because I've noticed that a LOT has changed in 5 years with SuSE 13.1, and I'm just trying to get myself familiar and up to speed with these changes.
    As I get "down and dirty" with it, I realize I have a long way to go.

    So once again,
    Thanks for all of your input!
    I know I'll be back again with more questions

    Brick.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    25,120

    Default Re: Unnecessary critical updates showing up in "Software Update" ?

    Apart from trying to get used to openSUSE and to get rid of what you know about Windows (it helps enormously when you erase all Windows knowledge and habits from your mind ), als get used to the fact that these forums are about openSUSE. All other ways of spelling it are either outdated, or may even confuse people thinking you use with SUSE Linux SLES/SLED.
    Henk van Velden

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: Unnecessary critical updates showing up in "Software Update"?

    On 2013-12-20 18:37, Jim Henderson wrote:
    > On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:43:08 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
    >
    >> On 2013-12-20 06:08, Jim Henderson wrote:
    >>> It's important to remember that anecdotal evidence is not data - and
    >>> the data around btrfs seems to say that it is production ready, at
    >>> least with a subset of features.

    >>
    >> I know how to reliably crash an btrfs filesystem beyond repair... >:-)

    >
    > Good for you...I guess. I can reliably crash any filesystem with dd.
    > [shrug]


    No, I don't mean that type of trick... I simply write normal files in certain fashion.


    > Have you submitted it as a bug? Seems like something someone might want
    > to fix.


    Absolutely. During RC phase. Not solved yet. Bug 846807.


    Bugzilla database is down now, by the way:


    Software error:

    Can't connect to the database.
    Error: Too many connections
    Is your database installed and up and running?
    Do you have the correct username and password selected in localconfig?


    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.
    (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Elessar))

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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