Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 117

Thread: Btrfs? Why??

  1. #1

    Default Btrfs? Why??

    After reading this link: http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20949 I'm wondering why openSuse is switching from ext4 to Btrfs.

    Performance looks worse than ext4. Ext4 is in use on lots of computers, so most bugs have been fixed. Why is openSuse setting the default fs to Btrfs and risk the data of their users by new bugs? At least they should warn their users...

    For sure I'll stick with ext4 for the nearby future and let other people risk their data and file the bugreports.

    Best Regards.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    12,374
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Btrfs? Why??

    I stayed with "ext4".
    openSUSE Leap 15.1; KDE Plasma 5;

  3. #3

    Default Re: Btrfs? Why??

    simple: Evolution !
    as Plasma 5 ,as gnomo 3.14 , blablabla ...


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    612

    Default Re: Btrfs? Why??

    I think most use cases require more than raw performance numbers. I for one have already made the switch to btrfs because of data/metadata checksumming and compression. The latter improving read performance when storing a lot of compressable files. I can't say it will be reliable for all use cases but it has survived with my critical backups for over a year now. I am looking forward to it being made further reliable.


    Ext4 had critical bugs too..

    http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...ds-740671.html
    https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...ux/+bug/317781

    This report even mentions btrfs as not having the issue.
    http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg19493.html

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    West Virginia Sector 13
    Posts
    15,657

    Default Re: Btrfs? Why??

    My only real problem with btrfs is that by default it has snapper on which can consume more disk space then a uninformed person might expect. The default setting to date are too extreme for the average user that does not know it is happening. The default setting should be reduced and snapper should be optionally turned on by the user not on by default.

    I predict that if the current settings are used that the forum will be over run with out of disk space problems soon after 13.2 release. people will try it in small test partitions and boom run out of memory with the hidden snapper files. Madness I say, madness

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    20,199
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Btrfs? Why??

    Quote Originally Posted by gogalthorp View Post
    My only real problem with btrfs is that by default it has snapper on which can consume more disk space then a uninformed person might expect. The default setting to date are too extreme for the average user that does not know it is happening. The default setting should be reduced and snapper should be optionally turned on by the user not on by default.

    I predict that if the current settings are used that the forum will be over run with out of disk space problems soon after 13.2 release. people will try it in small test partitions and boom run out of memory with the hidden snapper files. Madness I say, madness
    Yes, I agree that would be concerning.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    612

    Default Re: Btrfs? Why??

    Quote Originally Posted by gogalthorp View Post
    The default setting should be reduced and snapper should be optionally turned on by the user not on by default.
    I 100% agree with you here. It should be made for only minimal (boot loader, kernel, fstab) backups or certainly even off by default.

    The new factory has a GUI to enable/disable snapper, but it is hidden in the btrfs partition options and defaults to on. This seems like a bug report about the issue. Perhaps we can weigh in or contact the openSUSE btrfsprogs/snapper developers? https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=740574

    Also it should be noted that running a defrag (afaik) isn't currently snapshot aware so cow snapshots will suddenly take of space if you decide to defrag. Not that many people would really do that.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    25,547

    Default Re: Btrfs? Why??

    On 2014-09-25 01:26, nightwishfan wrote:
    > gogalthorp;2666271 Wrote:


    >> The default setting should be reduced and snapper should be optionally
    >> turned on by the user not on by default.


    > I 100% agree with you here. It should be made for only minimal (boot
    > loader, kernel, fstab) backups or certainly even off by default.


    No way :-)

    The idea of the developers is to combine btrfs and package management,
    so that you can completely backout of any update or software
    installation, and perhaps, config changes.

    So they intentionally want that the entire root filesystem be on btrfs.
    Some parts of var are on a different volume (whatever the terminology)
    because they need to know the installation and backout history.

    That's the future, kids >:-)

    Now you start learning and teach the users how to use that >:-P

    (ducking)


    (no, I have no idea how to do/use any that. I just know that is the
    intention they have. Me, I have no great intention of learning and
    paving the road... this time I prefer to sit back and see how /you/ do
    it ;-) )

    --
    Cheers / Saludos,

    Carlos E. R.
    (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Frisco, TX
    Posts
    1,233

    Default Re: Btrfs? Why??

    On 09/24/2014 02:26 PM, Teuniz wrote:
    >
    > After reading this link: http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20949 I'm
    > wondering why openSuse is switching from ext4 to Btrfs.
    >
    > Performance looks worse than ext4. Ext4 is in use on lots of computers,
    > so most bugs have been fixed. Why is openSuse setting the default fs to
    > Btrfs and risk the data of their users by new bugs? At least they should
    > warn their users...
    >
    > For sure I'll stick with ext4 for the nearby future and let other people
    > risk their data and file the bugreports.
    >
    > Best Regards.


    ext4 is the evolution of an old style filesystem.

    btrfs has more features and potential.

    Even Red Hat advocates XFS over ext4 for some true enterprise level things.
    Which is to say that ext4 isn't suited for enterprise level tasks.

    But... if you're happy with ext4 (and most desktops are not enterprise class),
    then use whatever works best for you.

    Ext4 is definitely *not* bug free... so I'll let you risk death and end of the
    world and life as we know it by using it :-)




  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    612

    Default Re: Btrfs? Why??

    The problem isn't the feature. Being able to back up configuration or roll backup updates automatically is great. The problem is it continues to eat up disk space until the drive is full. To delete them you have to use the command line to delete the snapshots. I disable the feature because I prefer to back up myself rather than worry about being out of space.

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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