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.

I stayed with “ext4”.

simple: Evolution !
[size=2] as Plasma 5 ,as gnomo 3.14 , blablabla …

[/size]

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/item/Ext4-data-loss-explanations-and-workarounds-740671.html
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/317781

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

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 :open_mouth:

Yes, I agree that would be concerning.

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? Access Denied

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.

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 :slight_smile:

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 :wink: )


Cheers / Saludos,

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

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 :slight_smile:

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.

Ext4 had critical bugs too…

Exactly my point. Every new filesystem has them. That’s why I prefer to stick with ext4, all important bugs for desktop users has been removed.
Why take the risk again with a new 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.

I do believe that Btrfs has some advantages for professional use (servers). But why is that important for desktop users??

A system adminstrator knows what he is doing when he formats a drive or installs an operating system. He knows how to uncheck ext4 and to check the checkbox for Btrfs during the Suse installation procedure.
For desktop users it’s another story. It’s very tricky to set the default to Btrfs and use them as bug reporters…

What I do understand from this is that Suse (and others!) prefer to let the desktop users try Btrfs and find bugs before they use it in their production systems.

The only question is, how much confidence do you have in Btrfs.

I have to admit, I’m an oldtime Suse user and I still remember the days that Suse used Reiserfs per default. A pitty that they didn’t take over the development after Reiser killed his wife and ended up in jail.

I certainly agree with this sentiment, and I anticipate the same problems.

In addition, I expect a lot of hassles with fixing boot problems popping up on the forum.

In my opinion, the installer should plainly offer a choice between ext4 and BTRFS, with brief explanations of what to expect, and perhaps warnings to novices about the consequences of the choices.

On 2014-09-25 09:56, Teuniz wrote:

> What I do understand from this is that Suse (and others!) prefer to let
> the desktop users try Btrfs and find bugs before they use it in their
> production systems.

I would not be surprised to see SLE 12 use btrfs as default.

And actually, it does:

http://www.enterprisetech.com/2014/03/04/long-awaited-suse-linux-12-enters-beta/

«Among the features coming in SLES 12 is a new way to do full system
snapshots and rollback to reduce planned downtime during upgrades»

https://www.suse.com/releasenotes/x86_64/SUSE-SLES/12/#InfraPackArch.ArchIndependent.Storage

«With SUSE Linux Enterprise 12, Btrfs is the default file system for the
operating system, xfs is the default for all other use cases. We also
continue to support the Ext-family of file systems, Reiserfs and ocfs2.
Each file system offers disctinct advantages. Customers are advised to
use the YaST partitioner (or AutoYaST) to build their systems: YaST will
prepare the Btrfs file system for use with subvolumes and snapshots.
Snapshots will be automatically enabled for the root file system using
SUSE’s snapper infrastructure. For more information about snapper, its
integration into ZYpp and YaST, and the YaST snapper module, see the
SUSE Linux Enterprise documentation.»


Cheers / Saludos,

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

On 2014-09-25 09:56, Teuniz wrote:
> I have to admit, I’m an oldtime Suse user and I still remember the days
> that Suse used Reiserfs per default. A pitty that they didn’t take over
> the development after Reiser killed his wife and ended up in jail.

It was a risk they took, promote and use reiserfs as default before it
was in upstream kernel. And there were some serious bugs. I once had to
rebuild from backup due to one.

…which may be the reason that they now require a feature to
be in mainstream kernel before providing it.

Nevertheless, it is my preferred filesystem. And yes, a pity indeed they
did not keep /really/ supporting it (they do nominally).


Cheers / Saludos,

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

I agree with that. However, that potential is not easily accessible at present. It will need changes in other software to make it more readily available.

I’ll stay with “ext4” until some of those changes are in place.

I t took me 23 tries (no this is not a joke) in Factory 13.2 to try to install in my old 12 years old PC 32-bit I586. Brtfs /. XFS /home. Oh yes we had fun home here. Later Beta1 13.2.

Who will understand the setup screens of Brtfs?

http://www.jodo.nu/pic/pic2/c.jpg

How interesting was is to have ext4 succelfull installed and booting up incl win OS on the disk. -It was a w-o-w.

I would say that it is a shame to propose whatever filesystem (ext4) funktioned.

http://www.jodo.nu/pic/pic2//P9290074.JPG

I understand the benefits of BTRFS for servers and for those possibly those with RAID setups. I really do not understand the benefits for the average desktop/laptop user. I did quite a bit of research and did some benchmarks on opeSUSE 13.2 beta 1. No performance increase for me.
I loved reiserfs too.

As usual… systemd is a part… Problem. SLED/SLES 13Xn are causing problems in openSUSE 13.1 and upcomming 13.2 whit he btrfs as default choice.

http://www.golem.de/news/lennart-poettering-systemd-und-btrfs-statt-linux-distributionen-mit-paketen-1409-108941.html

For those that not read German google translate may do it.

regards

On 2014-09-30 00:06, tweakhound wrote:
>
> I understand the benefits of BTRFS for servers and for those possibly
> those with RAID setups. I really do not understand the benefits for the
> average desktop/laptop user.

I do.

See one of my previous posts, it explains why the interest.


Cheers / Saludos,

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