Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and according to this benchmark http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame. The ext filesystem is slow if you meter the right times. If you e.g. untar a linux kernel tarball and just take the time GNU tar runs, you have a time but you don't know the related action! If you do this, disk I/O (with a few exceptions) will typically start after GNU tar exited. If you like to compare, you could either use star (that by default calls fsync(2) on avery single file after extracting) or pull the power cord after GNU tar finished and then check after a reboot ;-) On a ext filesystem, star extracts 4x slower in default mode compared to star -no-fsync I have no times for reiserfs, but it may be that the numbers look completely different if you get a time for a known action. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower but a lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs don't care about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance goes down by 30%. There is even a difference between real speed and apparently observed speed. The latter is optimized :-( Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and according to this benchmark http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame. they tested crap. As I wrote in the other mail. XFS and reiserfs turn on barriers by default, ext3 turns them off. With barriers on for ext3 it looses 30%(!). reiserfs and xfs don't suffer as much, but suffer they do. So if the test did not turn on or off barriers for all fs who support them, ext3 had an unfair advantage. And you want barriers. I am not sure what you call barriers ext3 slows down by 400% if you call fsync(2) after copying single files. UFS on Solaris slows down by 10% only because UFS has been optimized for best speed _and_ best data integrity. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think that either A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for non-technical reasons. or The Linux VFS is far from being optimal. I would guess that the real reason for not starting a ZFS port for Linux is the Linux VFS. The problem with Linux is that important external interfaces are broken with every new release but that internal kernel interfaces are not evolved. Sun claims e.g. that the changes in the Solaris kernel to allow to support a full blown CIFS in the kernel have been bigger than than the ZFS code size before the change. If Linux does not evolve the Linux VFS layer, these battles will never end. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Dale wrote: I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 07:05:39 Dale wrote: I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory chip, hard drive some new chemical, or some other ingenious thing but can't say a kind word if you give them a double dose of Prozac. Sort of strange huh? Easy. It's not that smart people have zero social skills. Smart people have the same spread of social skills as average and dumb people. Some smart people do not suffer fools gladly and they rise to prominence whereas others just act like everyone else and you do not especially note this fact. Smart people who work with machines get to be very good at it, but machines don't talk back. Some smart folk take to talking to people the way they talk to machines and this is noteworthy. Again, you do not take note of the majority that do not do this. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Alan McKinnon wrote: On Wednesday 26 November 2008 07:05:39 Dale wrote: I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory chip, hard drive some new chemical, or some other ingenious thing but can't say a kind word if you give them a double dose of Prozac. Sort of strange huh? Easy. It's not that smart people have zero social skills. Smart people have the same spread of social skills as average and dumb people. Some smart people do not suffer fools gladly and they rise to prominence whereas others just act like everyone else and you do not especially note this fact. Smart people who work with machines get to be very good at it, but machines don't talk back. Some smart folk take to talking to people the way they talk to machines and this is noteworthy. Again, you do not take note of the majority that do not do this. I guess we just notice the bad ones, if you want to call them that. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale: I wouldn't use XFS unless it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I had to reinstall from scratch. Hmm, I use it because of its resistance to power failures. When was it that you had such problems? Bye... Dirk Its been a while but it happened several times. I just got tired of having to reinstall every time the power blinked. Turned out the wire was loose on the transformer so they blinked a lot, every couple days or so. I think it was Mandrake 9.2. I have had a power failure or two with reiserfs and it recovered. It did the check thing but ran fine. Just my experience. Your mileage may vary. Dale :-) :-
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Nicolas Sebrecht [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with r4+compression. Well, it is under a restrictive license, so there is no chance that this filestem will become popular on many OS platforms. btrfs is under GPL... Correct, and this is the reason why it cannot appear on other platforms. The problem with the GPL is that it tries to prevent collaboration between different license camps. The GPL is an asymmetric license that allows other code to be used by GPLd code (this is why ZFS being under CDDL is no problem for a linux integration), but it does not allow other code (even code unter an approved OpenSource license) to use GPLd code. It ZFS was under GPL, it did not appear on FreeBSD and Mac OS X. What I expect from a promising new filesystem is that is may be integrated in a large variety of Platforms. Note that I am a supporter of collaboration in OSS and that it is important for me to write software in a highly portable way so anybody may use it I do not like the camp mentality. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, it is under a restrictive license, so there is no chance that this filestem will become popular on many OS platforms. btrfs is under GPL... you can stop right here. Jörg thinks that the GPL is restrictive and the CPPL much more 'freedomy'. Don't try to argue. It will result in some flamefest. If everybody uses arguments, there will be no flamefest. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Am Montag, den 24.11.2008, 16:12 +0200 schrieb GMail: On Monday 24 November 2008 08:28:33 Dirk Heinrichs wrote: @William: If one or more of the PVs is a Network Block Device, you're not bound to the local machine. You could also use iSCSI. On your client you'll get SCSI-device-nodes (/dev/sdx) which you can use as PVs. It's very fast and reliable. How does it cope with network outages though? In my experience, LVM is not exactly graceful when one of it's PVs goes away My experience too :( After reconnecting to the iSCSI-target I have to # vgchange -a n vg-iscsi # vgchange -a y vg-iscsi to get my devices in /dev/vg-iscsi/* to work again (during disconnection they keep existing, but are not usable with misleading error messages). When using iSCSI-devices you should use /dev/disk/by-path/taget-id and not /dev/sdx, as these device names can change. Bye, Daniel -- PGP key: http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xBB9D4887op=get # gpg --recv-keys --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0xBB9D4887 signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 11:07:26 Joerg Schilling wrote: It ZFS was under GPL, it did not appear on FreeBSD and Mac OS X. What I expect from a promising new filesystem is that is may be integrated in a large variety of Platforms. Note that I am a supporter of collaboration in OSS and that it is important for me to write software in a highly portable way so anybody may use it I do not like the camp mentality. I used to be a totally-GPL fan but I changed my stance a few years back. The thing that did it for me was the TCP/IP stack. If this were not BSD licensed, it would not have been adopted as widely as it was, and we would not have an internet today. So keeping in mind that the GPL was designed to be used to create a free-standing body of free code that comprised an entire Unix-like system, I now advocate the following: Low level code that is intended to be used everywhere - on the order of filesystems, networking standards, block devices and such - ideally should be BSD licensed. Then anyone anywhere can use it. GPL in userland is fine, as apps tend to be free-standing and do not conflict with other code, hence the mere-aggregation clause. Kernel modules are different and cannot work this way. Expect in very unusual circumstances (eg XFS in the linux kernel) they are derivative works and the GPL kicks in. Which is fine, most people will contribute their changes back upstream anyway just like GPL demands. But GPL is incompatible with other licenses which prohibits equal two-way sharing. The easiest possible solution as I see it is to just license this low-level utility code as BSD. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale: I wouldn't use XFS unless it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I had to reinstall from scratch. Hmm, I use it because of its resistance to power failures. When was it that you had such problems? Bye... Dirk Its been a while but it happened several times. I just got tired of having to reinstall every time the power blinked. Turned out the wire was loose on the transformer so they blinked a lot, every couple days or so. I think it was Mandrake 9.2. I have had a power failure or two with reiserfs and it recovered. It did the check thing but ran fine. Just my experience. Your mileage may vary. Dale :-) :- I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser, I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.) I suppose if you ask enough people, there will be horror stories about every filesystem. No matter which FS you choose, I wish you good luck and hope you have no new horror stories. :) Paul
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
I wouldn't use XFS unless it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I had to reinstall from scratch. Hmm, I use it because of its resistance to power failures. When was it that you had such problems? Its been a while but it happened several times. I just got tired of having to reinstall every time the power blinked. Turned out the wire was loose on the transformer so they blinked a lot, every couple days or so. I think it was Mandrake 9.2. I have had a power failure or two with reiserfs and it recovered. It did the check thing but ran fine. Just my experience. Your mileage may vary. I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser, I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.) I suppose if you ask enough people, there will be horror stories about every filesystem. I use reiserfs and I twice got serious filesystem corruptions after crashes, and one was very serious. It is unclear whether this was reiserfs's fault or the hardware. You see, I was using athcool to save electricity, and it seems that when the bit Disconnect enable when STPGNT detected is set on the Northbridge (this is what athcool does) and you are using a PixelView PV-M4900 FM.RC (specially if you are recording tv - with mencoder - as opposed to just viewing it - with mplayer), your computer malfunctions. I was able to recover much of the data with reiserfsck --rebuild-tree, but some of the files had part of their content replaced with a string of null bytes. I heard somewhere that reiserfs is infamous for replacing file content with a string of null bytes, so maybe this is indeed reiserfs fault, and not just bad hardware. By the way, I chose reiserfs (some 3 years ago I believe) because of its speed fame, but now, thinking of it, there are only four computer activities that make my system slow: 1) launch heavy programs such as firefox (when not in cache) 2) compile software 3) view certain web pages in firefox 4) encode video Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and the root partition is only 7% used? So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable). -- Software is like sex: it is better when it is free - Linus Torvalds
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and the root partition is only 7% used? So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable). Oh, and according to this benchmark http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Paul Hartman wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale: I wouldn't use XFS unless it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I had to reinstall from scratch. Hmm, I use it because of its resistance to power failures. When was it that you had such problems? Bye... Dirk Its been a while but it happened several times. I just got tired of having to reinstall every time the power blinked. Turned out the wire was loose on the transformer so they blinked a lot, every couple days or so. I think it was Mandrake 9.2. I have had a power failure or two with reiserfs and it recovered. It did the check thing but ran fine. Just my experience. Your mileage may vary. Dale :-) :- I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser, I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.) the corruption stories were caused by vm changes that were not tested against reiserfs. Thank R.v.Riel, Andrea Arcangeli and of course Linus Torvalds for that mess.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: I was able to recover much of the data with reiserfsck --rebuild-tree, but some of the files had part of their content replaced with a string of null bytes. I heard somewhere that reiserfs is infamous for replacing file content with a string of null bytes, so maybe this is indeed reiserfs fault, and not just bad hardware. no, that is xfs. So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable). reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower but a lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs don't care about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance goes down by 30%.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower but a lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs don't care about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance goes down by 30%. I read an article about that, and if I recall correctly the assumption was that the likelihood of data loss occurring due to the barriers issue was negligible. I have no expertise to decide on that matter, but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop usage), no? Somewhat offtopic: What do you suggest for me? I care about data safety, but am too lazy to make frequent backups, so filesystem robustness and availability of data recovery tools is pretty important; and as I said before, the only performance problem with my computer that I think may be related to filesystem is boot time and launching heavy programs not in cache; keep in mind my root partition is only 3,8 GB used and 93% free - maybe in this condition the filesystem is not stressed and only the actual HD speed matters? Valerie Henson from VAH Consulting says that every file system goes fast with: * O(1000) files per directory * File size a few KB to a few GB * Read-mostly access * Infrequent file creation/deletion * Sequential file read/write patterns * Shallow directory depth ( 10 levels) * Total file system size O(100 GB)
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and the root partition is only 7% used? So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable). Oh, and according to this benchmark http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html reiserfs does not deserve its speed fame. they tested crap. As I wrote in the other mail. XFS and reiserfs turn on barriers by default, ext3 turns them off. With barriers on for ext3 it looses 30%(!). reiserfs and xfs don't suffer as much, but suffer they do. So if the test did not turn on or off barriers for all fs who support them, ext3 had an unfair advantage. And you want barriers.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto schrieb: I have no expertise to decide on that matter, but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop usage), no? Most people and companies / organisations use M$ Windows. Would you say that this is saver than your Linux? You are outnumbered for sure ;-)
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tuesday 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: reiserfs has barriers turned on by default - which makes it a bit slower but a lot safer for data. ext3 has them turned off by default - ext3 devs don't care about data - only speed. You turn on barriers, performance goes down by 30%. I read an article about that, and if I recall correctly the assumption was that the likelihood of data loss occurring due to the barriers issue was negligible. I have no expertise to decide on that matter, but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop usage), no? fedora turns on 4k stack - well knowing that it kills xfs. Do you want to rephrase your question? Somewhat offtopic: What do you suggest for me? I care about data safety, but am too lazy to make frequent backups, so filesystem robustness and availability of data recovery tools is pretty important; so use whatever you want, get a nice cheap dlt from ebay and let a cronjob write to it. No 'lazy' problem. Very secure.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
[...] I have no expertise to decide on that matter, but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop usage), no? fedora turns on 4k stack - well knowing that it kills xfs. Do you want to rephrase your question? Well, I said I have little expertise. Won't argue. Somewhat offtopic: What do you suggest for me? I care about data safety, but am too lazy to make frequent backups, so filesystem robustness and availability of data recovery tools is pretty important; so use whatever you want, get a nice cheap dlt from ebay and let a cronjob write to it. No 'lazy' problem. Very secure. I live in Brasil, and due to huge taxes, poor infrastructure and the currency exchange ratio, computer stuff is far more expensive than in the US. And then you have to factor that the average Brazilian is much poorer than the average US citizen. But anyway, I know I must make backups, but I still want a robust filesystem with good software support (such as data recovery utilities). Could you give me your suggestion for the safest filesystem for a desktop user that only uses 3,8G of his 54G root partition? I care about speed, but I think that my usage pattern does not stress the filesystem (if what Valerie Henson says is true).
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 19:57:19 Paul Hartman wrote: I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser, I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.) Sounds like you used JFS in a case it was not designed for. XFS for instance can be best described as a filesystem that does aggressive caching, so if you install it you need to guarantee that it will never lose power, i.e. use a UPS. It's OK for SGI to have done this, considering the kind of rendering clusters they were running it on. Use it outside that viewpoint and hey, JMMV. JFS will have it's own specific best use scenario The reiser stories are just that, horror stories from years ago. Then it was beta software, it is not beta any more. I've used it for over 4 years now on every machine I have and suffered no data loss that was not directly because of me being stupid. I don't think I can blame Hans if I run fsck with the wrong options at the wrong time :-) I suppose if you ask enough people, there will be horror stories about every filesystem. yes, very much so. Much more so than for any other kind of driver by my experience. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 20:37:13 Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: Now, since I usually compile software in a tmpfs, I guess the filesystem makes nearly zero difference. Video encoding is obviously bound by CPU, cache and RAM speed, not filesystem. Web rendering is also hardly affected by filesystem . And launching programs means mostly reading files, and would reiserfs be significantly faster than ext3 for this, specially considering that my system is minimalist and the root partition is only 7% used? I find that in normal use, most filesystems have a large range of number of files per directory and the spread of how big those files are. In other words, a huge mixture of everything. reiser and ext both have areas they are very good at but in normal use the good and bad performance evens out so you get roughly the same with both filesystems. The deciding factor then becomes which filesystem tools are you most comfortable with? because that's the one you should be using. There are special cases - if the portage tree is on it's own filesystem, ext3 does give better performance. So it seems I should not have chosen reiserfs, which has a fame of being less safe than ext3, and certainly has less software support than ext3. The next time I format my root partition, I will choose ext3 (then move to ext4 when it is stable). As I said in another post, I don't believe that either reiser or ext3 is inherently more or less safe than the other. Your upgrade path to ext4 does change things, so yeah, you have a perfectly valid reason to switch to ext3 right away -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 21:24:48 Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: I have no expertise to decide on that matter, but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop usage), no? I don't think that has anything to do with performance or safety. Instead: 1. Red Hat suffers from a serious case of Not Invented Here Syndrome. They do good work, but they have that little eccentricity too. ReiserFS was funded in large part by SuSE, therefore RH are ill-inclined to use it. Many distros follow Red Hat's lead, very few go with SuSE to wherever SuSE is going. Who knows why Debian made their choice - it' s probably as simple as ext3 traces it roots back much further than Reiser can 2. NameSys was largely driven by the fame (infamy?) of it's owner - a typical mad scientist geek who writes excellent code. But he got himself in jail and the risk associated with using his filesystem sans reliable know maintainer is too great a risk for most distros -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Dienstag 25 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: so use whatever you want, get a nice cheap dlt from ebay and let a cronjob write to it. No 'lazy' problem. Very secure. I live in Brasil, and due to huge taxes, poor infrastructure and the currency exchange ratio, computer stuff is far more expensive than in the US. it is more expensive in europe too ;) And then you have to factor that the average Brazilian is much poorer than the average US citizen. and because of that I talked about dlt. A nice, used dlt 35/70 will work for another couple of years, is not very expensive (anymore), and very robust. But anyway, I know I must make backups, but I still want a robust filesystem with good software support (such as data recovery utilities). Could you give me your suggestion for the safest filesystem for a desktop user that only uses 3,8G of his 54G root partition? I care about speed, but I think that my usage pattern does not stress the filesystem (if what Valerie Henson says is true). xfs, reiserfs, ext3 all work fine. I would stay away from xfs with unstable electricity. I would also stay away from jfs, because almost nobody uses it. I have used reiserfs in the past, I am using reiser4 now. But I don't recommend r4. It is working great for ME. But that doesn't mean that it is the right choice for anybody else.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 17:24 -0200, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: ... but the fact that pretty much every linux distribution chooses ext3 by default suggests it is the safest (at least for simple desktop/laptop usage), no? ... No, for me ext2 = continual lost data issues from even the smallest glitch. I had (up to a couple of weeks ago ext2 on a freerunner phone - almost daily data problems (a freerunner should be packed in foam - it crashes 2-3 times a day if you use it!), Since using ext3, the problems are drasticly reduced but still occur ever few days. Even VFAT has less problems that ext2, but ext3 is a little better. Note this is using the defaults - this conversation reminds me that I should look at this again. The only FS I have lost complete systems (2 laptops, flat batteries when not present) from were ext3, as well as continuous more minor corruption issues (love backups) reiserfs has had corruption issues in the past, but is currently very stable. Any issues that have developed have always been fixable with no lost data. I did run into a few repeatable issues with NFS - about 5 years ago. None since from this. A couple of minor issues with crashes, easily fixed and some hardware failures. I ran ext3 on a dirvish backup server - lasted two days, resierfs is still going after a couple of years. dirvish REALLY hammers a file system. Participating in a few of these discussions over the years has brought home to me that YMMV really does apply to filesystems. Your usage, data profile, power/hardware stability are all variables and any two peoples experience almost assuredly wont be the same. BillK
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
I ran ext3 on a dirvish backup server - lasted two days, resierfs is still going after a couple of years. dirvish REALLY hammers a file system. Participating in a few of these discussions over the years has brought home to me that YMMV really does apply to filesystems. Your usage, data profile, power/hardware stability are all variables and any two peoples experience almost assuredly wont be the same. In this discussion multiple people have defended reiserfs as a safe filesystem. This is novel to me. Reiserfs is always bashed as being an unsafe filesystem, developed with only speed in mind; a filesystem to be used only by childish ricers or in specific situations where filesystem performance is critical. For example, once I tried genkernel (but did not like it and decide to go on with manual kernel maintainance) and this message was in an ewarn ewarn This package is known to not work with reiser4. If you are running ewarn reiser4 and have a problem, do not file a bug. We know it does not ewarn work and we don't plan on fixing it since reiser4 is the one that is ewarn broken in this regard. Try using a sane filesystem like ext3 or ewarn even reiser3. They explicitly claim reiser4 is broken and insane, and their wording implicitly suggests that ext3 is better than reiser3. But in this discussion people are saying reiserfs is in fact safer than ext3. I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think that either A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for non-technical reasons. or B) reiserfs is a bad filesystem but for some reason a lot of reiserfs fans appeared in this thread Note: don't talk about the unfortunate horrible story of Hans' family, the details of which we don't know. People were bashing reiserfs (both versions 3 and 4) well before that.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
... I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think that either A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for non-technical reasons. or B) reiserfs is a bad filesystem but for some reason a lot of reiserfs fans appeared in this thread A is the answer. Hans Reiser is by all accounts a brilliant, eccentric but deeply flawed individual. He did not get on at a personal or professional level with the world in general. It almost seems like ext3/4 were developed to spite him and give alternatives so they would not have to deal with him. Unprofessional words and actions were taken on both sides, but the animosity caused by Hans (and others in response) means that this will take forever to blow over, even with Hans out of the picture. There is a huge amount out there on this. There are also may other highly valued developers out there who may also be a little eccentric (to be kind!). In the meantime, my opinion is that reiserfs3 is great, ext3 not quite so good, and ext2/4 and reiserfs4 are for those who live on the edge :) BillK
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Mittwoch 26 November 2008, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: I ran ext3 on a dirvish backup server - lasted two days, resierfs is still going after a couple of years. dirvish REALLY hammers a file system. Participating in a few of these discussions over the years has brought home to me that YMMV really does apply to filesystems. Your usage, data profile, power/hardware stability are all variables and any two peoples experience almost assuredly wont be the same. In this discussion multiple people have defended reiserfs as a safe filesystem. This is novel to me. Reiserfs is always bashed as being an unsafe filesystem, developed with only speed in mind; a filesystem to be used only by childish ricers or in specific situations where filesystem performance is critical. For example, once I tried genkernel (but did not like it and decide to go on with manual kernel maintainance) and this message was in an ewarn ewarn This package is known to not work with reiser4. If you are running ewarn reiser4 and have a problem, do not file a bug. We know it does not ewarn work and we don't plan on fixing it since reiser4 is the one that is ewarn broken in this regard. Try using a sane filesystem like ext3 or ewarn even reiser3. reiser4 and reiserfs are two completly unrelated file systems. reiserfs is the oldest journaling fs for linux. It had been broken in early 2.4 development by careless vm patches which weren't tested prior to inclusion. This early breakage still haunts reiserfs. If you look at lkml, there are regularly reports about problems with ext3 and xfs. But very few with reiserfs - and none with jfs because nobody is using it. They explicitly claim reiser4 is broken and insane, and their wording implicitly suggests that ext3 is better than reiser3. And I claim that genkernel is a broken piece of shit, so what? ext3 has enough problems - look at lkml. After that you might rethink claims that ext3 is 'stable'. But in this discussion people are saying reiserfs is in fact safer than ext3. experience. Obervation. I haven't seen reiserfs problems that were not the hardware's fault. I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think that either Hans Reiser has zero people skills and clashed with people who also have zero people skills. Add some misunderstandings (like plugins - they aren't plugins), a fat 'it is not developed here' syndrom and some bias and you get a nice explosive mess. HR is completly out of the picture. Edward is doing reiser4 development today and he is doing a good job. A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for non-technical reasons. reiserfs is a good filesystem that was broken by third parties. Btw, some days ago Nick Piggin broke reiser4 in -mm. And instead of fixing it, they disabled reiser4. Which tells you a lot about the 'if you have something in kernel, it will be fixed when changes break it' lie. or B) reiserfs is a bad filesystem but for some reason a lot of reiserfs fans appeared in this thread reiserfs is a stable filesystem. For ages no new features have been added. Unlike ext3 only bug fixes have been went in. The problem is, that redhat was behind ext3 - and redhat pushs all their stuff, while agressively attacking everything not made by them. Note: don't talk about the unfortunate horrible story of Hans' family, the details of which we don't know. People were bashing reiserfs (both versions 3 and 4) well before that. because they don't understand either. reiser4 has tons of nice and good ideas - but some people saw Reiser's name and went beserk.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
081126 W.Kenworthy wrote: A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for non-technical reasons. A is the answer. Hans Reiser is by all accounts a brilliant, eccentric but deeply flawed individual. He did not get on at a personal or professional level with the world in general. It almost seems like ext3/4 were developed to spite him and give alternatives so they would not have to deal with him. Unprofessional words and actions were taken on both sides, but the animosity caused by Hans and others in response means this will take forever to blow over, even with Hans out of the picture. Yes, very much my own take on the story. I used Reiserfs in the computers I built in 2003 2007 have never had any problems with either installation. My CAD 0,02 . -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Paul Hartman wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale: I wouldn't use XFS unless it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I had to reinstall from scratch. Hmm, I use it because of its resistance to power failures. When was it that you had such problems? Bye... Dirk Its been a while but it happened several times. I just got tired of having to reinstall every time the power blinked. Turned out the wire was loose on the transformer so they blinked a lot, every couple days or so. I think it was Mandrake 9.2. I have had a power failure or two with reiserfs and it recovered. It did the check thing but ran fine. Just my experience. Your mileage may vary. Dale :-) :- I have a similar story, but for me it was JFS instead of XFS. I will never, ever, ever use JFS for anything again. I had XFS on a file server RAID box with a failing power supply and it died over and over and the FS stayed functional, so YMMV indeed. (I haven't tried reiser, I'm still scared about the corruption stories from years ago.) I suppose if you ask enough people, there will be horror stories about every filesystem. No matter which FS you choose, I wish you good luck and hope you have no new horror stories. :) Paul LOL. I have two hard drives and copy my main drive over to the second drive pretty regular. One is reiserfs and the other ext3. What are the chances both would screw up at the same time? ;-) It could have been a bad version of XFS or something but after about three or four times, it just got old. I put ext3 on it after that and it would recover fine, except for the griping about not being shutdown properly and such. It was a in-law so no clue exactly what it said but it booted and worked. You are right, no matter what FS you use, there is somebody that hates it. I guess you just have to install, make a back-up, then pull the plug and see if it survives or not. If it does, you got a keeper, if not, restore to another FS and try again. o_O Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
W.Kenworthy wrote: ... I have not dived in the Linux developers x Hans Reiser battle, so I don't know which side is right and which side is guilty, but think that either A) reiserfs is a good filesystem, but the battle between Hans Reiser and Linux developers caused people to dislike reiserfs for non-technical reasons. or B) reiserfs is a bad filesystem but for some reason a lot of reiserfs fans appeared in this thread A is the answer. Hans Reiser is by all accounts a brilliant, eccentric but deeply flawed individual. He did not get on at a personal or professional level with the world in general. It almost seems like ext3/4 were developed to spite him and give alternatives so they would not have to deal with him. Unprofessional words and actions were taken on both sides, but the animosity caused by Hans (and others in response) means that this will take forever to blow over, even with Hans out of the picture. There is a huge amount out there on this. There are also may other highly valued developers out there who may also be a little eccentric (to be kind!). In the meantime, my opinion is that reiserfs3 is great, ext3 not quite so good, and ext2/4 and reiserfs4 are for those who live on the edge :) BillK I'm not expecting a answer but along the lines of a viewpoint in a question form. Why is it that smart, I mean seriously smart, people have the worst social skills? They can invent a super fast CPU, memory chip, hard drive some new chemical, or some other ingenious thing but can't say a kind word if you give them a double dose of Prozac. Sort of strange huh? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Montag 24 November 2008, Dale wrote: Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 02:06:04 schrieb Dale: I think it is LVMS or something. Linux volume management system?? I think Redhat calls it EVMS or something. Two things, (more ore less) one purpose: 1) LVM: Logical Volume Management 2) EVMS: Enterprise Volume Management System 1) is used for management of Logical Volumes, organised in Volume Groups, which could be spread accross one or more Physical Volumes. @William: If one or more of the PVs is a Network Block Device, you're not bound to the local machine. 2) From IBM, not RH. It's an umbrella for the whole storage management chain from fdisk over (SW-) RAID and Logical Volumes to filesystem creation and maintenance. HTH... Dirk I knew it was something like that. I thought it was networkable but was not sure. You guys sure know more about that than I do. - evms was used for a while by Suse - I don't know if they still do. - there is a long lvm-is-broken-threadon f.g.o.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Montag 24 November 2008, Dale wrote: I knew it was something like that. I thought it was networkable but was not sure. You guys sure know more about that than I do. - evms was used for a while by Suse - I don't know if they still do. - there is a long lvm-is-broken-threadon f.g.o. I used to be subscribed to the mailing list, thought about using one or the other. Just before I unsubscribed, there were some people trying to get it back up and going. I'm not sure how that went or if it is still being worked on or not. It seemed pretty neat but I just couldn't never get up the nerve to switch over. Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale: Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-) Well, with its inventor being imprisoned for the next 15 years or so, you'll have to be patient. I for one wait for btrfs. Bye... Dirk
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale: Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-) Well, with its inventor being imprisoned for the next 15 years or so, you'll have to be patient. I for one wait for btrfs. Bye... Dirk Edward is not imprisioned and doing a fine job. Even in face of such current sabotage attempts as by Morton/Piggin.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 13:49:38 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale: Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-) Well, with its inventor being imprisoned for the next 15 years or so, you'll have to be patient. I for one wait for btrfs. Edward is not imprisioned and doing a fine job. Even in face of such current sabotage attempts as by Morton/Piggin. Is he the inventor? AFAIK he's (one of) the last remaining developer(s). However, btrfs also seems to be the favourite of many kernel hackers as they want to have a ZFS competitor. Bye... Dirk
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 13:49:38 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale: Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-) Well, with its inventor being imprisoned for the next 15 years or so, you'll have to be patient. I for one wait for btrfs. Edward is not imprisioned and doing a fine job. Even in face of such current sabotage attempts as by Morton/Piggin. Is he the inventor? AFAIK he's (one of) the last remaining developer(s). However, btrfs also seems to be the favourite of many kernel hackers as they want to have a ZFS competitor. he is not - but after the invention is implemented, the inventor is not needed anymore ;) btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with r4+compression.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Monday 24 November 2008 14:49:38 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale: Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-) Well, with its inventor being imprisoned for the next 15 years or so, you'll have to be patient. I for one wait for btrfs. Bye... Dirk Edward is not imprisioned and doing a fine job. Even in face of such current sabotage attempts as by Morton/Piggin. Never mind Hans' troubles, whoever maintains Reiser4 still has to get it past Linux, Alan Cox, Greg KH and co. That is not likely to be easy. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Monday 24 November 2008 13:07:34 Dale wrote: I used to be subscribed to the mailing list, thought about using one or the other. Just before I unsubscribed, there were some people trying to get it back up and going. I'm not sure how that went or if it is still being worked on or not. It seemed pretty neat but I just couldn't never get up the nerve to switch over. Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-) dream on brother, dream on. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon. You'll have better luck getting Sun to dual-license ZFS under GPL :-) OTOH, ext4 and btrfs seem to have some interesting feature sets in the roadmap -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Monday 24 November 2008 08:28:33 Dirk Heinrichs wrote: @William: If one or more of the PVs is a Network Block Device, you're not bound to the local machine. I'd never thought of that, but it makes sense. PV wants a raw block device and couldn't care less if it leads to local disk or something else. How does it cope with network outages though? In my experience, LVM is not exactly graceful when one of it's PVs goes away -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Monday 24 November 2008 07:58:55 Roy Wright wrote: W.Kenworthy wrote: On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:06 -0600, Dale wrote: Kobboi wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote: Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte is unused, but mostly in scattered chunks. Some space is exported via NFS and samba for backups and shared files. maybe ZFS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS But not on Linux as a kernel module sadly There's a FUSE implementation which is considerably slower (being FUSE) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
GMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 24 November 2008 13:07:34 Dale wrote: I used to be subscribed to the mailing list, thought about using one or the other. Just before I unsubscribed, there were some people trying to get it back up and going. I'm not sure how that went or if it is still being worked on or not. It seemed pretty neat but I just couldn't never get up the nerve to switch over. Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-) dream on brother, dream on. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon. You'll have better luck getting Sun to dual-license ZFS under GPL :-) There is no need to dual license ZFS. There is absolutely no problem with using ZFS from Linux. What's missing is the will from the kernel developers to work on the incompatible VFS interface in the linux kernel. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On 24 Nov 2008, at 14:12, GMail wrote: On Monday 24 November 2008 07:58:55 Roy Wright wrote: W.Kenworthy wrote: On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:06 -0600, Dale wrote: Kobboi wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote: Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte is unused, but mostly in scattered chunks. Some space is exported via NFS and samba for backups and shared files. maybe ZFS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS But not on Linux as a kernel module sadly There's a FUSE implementation which is considerably slower (being FUSE) IIRC the author of Linux-ZFS cites the NTFS implementation as demonstrating that FUSE can produce quite acceptable performance. Of course, maybe performance of NTFS would be better were it a kernel module, but I get the strong impression Linux-ZFS is poor because it doesn't have the developer resources needed to improve it. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 15:12:00 schrieb GMail: How does it cope with network outages though? In my experience, LVM is not exactly graceful when one of it's PVs goes away Don't know. I just know it's possible but never did it myself. Bye... Dirk
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Roy Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: W.Kenworthy wrote: On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:06 -0600, Dale wrote: Kobboi wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote: Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte is unused, but mostly in scattered chunks. Some space is exported via NFS and samba for backups and shared files. maybe ZFS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS ZFS seems to be the best match as ZFS is implemented on top of zpools that allows you to share the underlying data store. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 14:50:30 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: he is not - but after the invention is implemented, the inventor is not needed anymore ;) Yes, that's right. Bye... Dirk
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: he is not - but after the invention is implemented, the inventor is not needed anymore ;) I hope this is not the reason for putting him into prison ;-) Note the sign at the Springfield prison: If you commited murder, you'd be home by now. btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with r4+compression. Well, it is under a restrictive license, so there is no chance that this filestem will become popular on many OS platforms. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 13:49:38 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: On Montag 24 November 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Montag, 24. November 2008 12:07:34 schrieb Dale: Maybe it will survive. I'm waiting on reiserfs4 to go stable. ;-) Well, with its inventor being imprisoned for the next 15 years or so, you'll have to be patient. I for one wait for btrfs. Edward is not imprisioned and doing a fine job. Even in face of such current sabotage attempts as by Morton/Piggin. Is he the inventor? AFAIK he's (one of) the last remaining developer(s). However, btrfs also seems to be the favourite of many kernel hackers as they want to have a ZFS competitor. he is not - but after the invention is implemented, the inventor is not needed anymore ;) btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with r4+compression. It has been a while but I heard some people was working on it. I know about the inventors legal issues but that doesn't mean someone else can't pick up where he left off. I'm currently using reiserfs and love the heck out of it. I'm not real big on ext. I wouldn't use XFS unless it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I had to reinstall from scratch. Here's to hoping. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Monday 24 November 2008 23:47:14 Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with r4+compression. Well, it is under a restrictive license, so there is no chance that this filestem will become popular on many OS platforms. btrfs is under GPL... http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/btrfs-kernel-unstable.git;a =blob;f=COPYING;h=ca442d313d86dc67e0a2e5d584b465bd382cbf5c;hb=e0dfd0d76e9205 a54f04c07072814c0ab282 That's Joerg's point. GPL is restrictive when compared to other OSS licenses. As a filesystem it pretty much goes into a kernel. It's an original work, so can only go into other kernels under the GPL. Effectively the only one that can work for is Linux. Joerg isn't a Linux man, he codes for other platforms too. His viewpoint from what he's posted in the post is usually something like can this be used on other systems too? For btrfs the answer is unfortunately not really -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Montag 24 November 2008, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with r4+compression. Well, it is under a restrictive license, so there is no chance that this filestem will become popular on many OS platforms. btrfs is under GPL... you can stop right here. Jörg thinks that the GPL is restrictive and the CPPL much more 'freedomy'. Don't try to argue. It will result in some flamefest.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with r4+compression. Well, it is under a restrictive license, so there is no chance that this filestem will become popular on many OS platforms. btrfs is under GPL... http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/btrfs-kernel-unstable.git;a=blob;f=COPYING;h=ca442d313d86dc67e0a2e5d584b465bd382cbf5c;hb=e0dfd0d76e9205a54f04c07072814c0ab282 -- Nicolas Sebrecht
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 00:15:55 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Montag 24 November 2008, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with r4+compression. Well, it is under a restrictive license, so there is no chance that this filestem will become popular on many OS platforms. btrfs is under GPL... you can stop right here. Jörg thinks that the GPL is restrictive and the CPPL much more 'freedomy'. Don't try to argue. It will result in some flamefest. I dunno about that. About the flamefest I mean. For the past 6 months Joerg has been a decent helpful member around here. He answers up every time his code is involved, doesn't rise to the bait with the occasional dumb user question and is mostly your typical geek with straight answers - with a bit of slack cut because he's not native English speaking. It wasn't always like that, but I think we should acknowledge things that change for the better. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Montag 24 November 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tuesday 25 November 2008 00:15:55 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Montag 24 November 2008, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 04:41:14PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: btrfs looks very promising. I hope it will become a good fs. Fast for everybody, stable, efficient. We will see. Until then I will stay with r4+compression. Well, it is under a restrictive license, so there is no chance that this filestem will become popular on many OS platforms. btrfs is under GPL... you can stop right here. Jörg thinks that the GPL is restrictive and the CPPL much more 'freedomy'. Don't try to argue. It will result in some flamefest. I dunno about that. About the flamefest I mean. For the past 6 months Joerg has been a decent helpful member around here. He answers up every time his code is involved, doesn't rise to the bait with the occasional dumb user question and is mostly your typical geek with straight answers - with a bit of slack cut because he's not native English speaking. It wasn't always like that, but I think we should acknowledge things that change for the better. I am not saying that it is Jörg's fault. Just saying that arguing will end in a flame fest. I have seen him writing about the GPL and his more favorite licences before - nothing Nicolas or anybody else says will change his mind. And nothing he will say will change the mind of the GPL fans. So there will be some clash of egos and a big, fat flame war, each side convinced to speak the ultimate truth. No thanks.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 22:09:52 schrieb Dale: I wouldn't use XFS unless it was all that was left. I tried it once a while back and found out it does not like power failures at all. Each time I had a power failure, I had to reinstall from scratch. Hmm, I use it because of its resistance to power failures. When was it that you had such problems? Bye... Dirk
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote: Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte is unused, but mostly in scattered chunks. Some space is exported via NFS and samba for backups and shared files. OT: the prefix is tera not terra.
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Kobboi wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote: Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte is unused, but mostly in scattered chunks. Some space is exported via NFS and samba for backups and shared files. OT: the prefix is tera not terra. I think it is LVMS or something. Linux volume management system?? I think Redhat calls it EVMS or something. If that doesn't help, let me know and I'll google it some. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:06 -0600, Dale wrote: Kobboi wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote: Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte is unused, but mostly in scattered chunks. Some space is exported via NFS and samba for backups and shared files. OT: the prefix is tera not terra. I think it is LVMS or something. Linux volume management system?? I think Redhat calls it EVMS or something. If that doesn't help, let me know and I'll google it some. Dale :-) :-) I think LVM is only useful on the same system - it doesnt deal with network resources. Most of my systems are using LVM2 at the moment. Billk
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
W.Kenworthy wrote: On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:06 -0600, Dale wrote: Kobboi wrote: On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 07:31 +0900, William Kenworthy wrote: Currently I have around 3 terrabytes of storage across a number of gentoo machines (4 at the moment) - at any one time 1/2 to 1 terrabyte is unused, but mostly in scattered chunks. Some space is exported via NFS and samba for backups and shared files. maybe ZFS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] filesystems
Am Montag, 24. November 2008 02:06:04 schrieb Dale: I think it is LVMS or something. Linux volume management system?? I think Redhat calls it EVMS or something. Two things, (more ore less) one purpose: 1) LVM: Logical Volume Management 2) EVMS: Enterprise Volume Management System 1) is used for management of Logical Volumes, organised in Volume Groups, which could be spread accross one or more Physical Volumes. @William: If one or more of the PVs is a Network Block Device, you're not bound to the local machine. 2) From IBM, not RH. It's an umbrella for the whole storage management chain from fdisk over (SW-) RAID and Logical Volumes to filesystem creation and maintenance. HTH... Dirk
