Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 20:57 +0400, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: > > Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) > some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to > get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with > zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues > and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; > btrfs is free from both. > In case anyone is interested, ZFS already has been ported to Linux as a FUSE module. A very talented GSoC participant did the port as his project. It works pretty well, but AFAIK it's not quite suitable for a root filesystem yet. Still, much of the hard work has been done. Cheers, Eric signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Btrfs development plans
Andrey Kuzmin wrote: > Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) > some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to > get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with > zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues > and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; > btrfs is free from both. There's one thing you're overlooking: the core kernel developers have already stated that ZFS is a "rampant layering violation" and otherwise indicated they do not want ZFS in the Linux kernel, whereas BtrFS has gotten a much more positive response. It may well be that on the /Oracle/ side, the political and technical problems with porting ZFS are smaller than those with finishing BtrFS, but if the kernel developers wouldn't accept it, _any_ money and effort spent on it would be wasted money and effort. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Unstable tree updated to 2.6.29-rc2
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 15:48 -0500, Mitch Harder (aka DontPanic) wrote: > I believe you mean 2.6.30-rc2 > Sorry, updated to 2.6.30-rc2 thanks Chris > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > I've updated the unstable tree to 2.6.29-rc2 and pushed out some of the > > pending fixes. This has my current fixes for fsync latency, which make > > btrfs behave much better when mixing synchronous and async writes. > > > > -chris > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Unstable tree updated to 2.6.29-rc2
I believe you mean 2.6.30-rc2 On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I've updated the unstable tree to 2.6.29-rc2 and pushed out some of the > pending fixes. This has my current fixes for fsync latency, which make > btrfs behave much better when mixing synchronous and async writes. > > -chris > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Unstable tree updated to 2.6.29-rc2
Hello everyone, I've updated the unstable tree to 2.6.29-rc2 and pushed out some of the pending fixes. This has my current fixes for fsync latency, which make btrfs behave much better when mixing synchronous and async writes. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
Chris Mason wrote: Hello everyone, Just a quick note about the recently announced purchase of Sun by Oracle. This does not change Oracle's plans for Btrfs at all, and Btrfs is still a key project for us. Please, keep your btrfs contributions and testing coming ;) -chris Just to chime in on a supportive note here, my file system team at Red Hat is very interested in the continued success of the btrfs project and we definitely plan to keep contributing (and hopefully even increase the number of active Red Hat contributors)! Regards, Ric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 21:18 +0400, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal > >> wrote: > But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. > Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. > > >>> > >>> May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :) > >>> Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any > >>> technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs > >> > >> Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) > >> some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to > >> get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with > >> zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues > >> and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; > >> btrfs is free from both. > > > > I'm sure that people with far more experience than I will comment— > > But considering that BTRFS is in the Linux Kernel today, the histories > > of other imported FSes (XFS), > > Imported file-systems (someone more experienced may correct me if I'm > wrong) have previously been give-aways. Definitely not true. > This one is different - zfs is > in active development, with highly welcomed features like > de-duplication coming. > I can't read the future, or really say the future directions of any of the sun projects. What I do know is that btrfs development will continue, and that Oracle's work on btrfs will not end or decrease. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin > wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal >> wrote: But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. >>> >>> May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :) >>> Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any >>> technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs >> >> Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) >> some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to >> get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with >> zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues >> and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; >> btrfs is free from both. > > I'm sure that people with far more experience than I will comment— > But considering that BTRFS is in the Linux Kernel today, the histories > of other imported FSes (XFS), Imported file-systems (someone more experienced may correct me if I'm wrong) have previously been give-aways. This one is different - zfs is in active development, with highly welcomed features like de-duplication coming. > and the state of ZFS in FreeBSD this may not be strictly true. This was one-man's effort (though a heroic one, definitely), hardly a case to compare with. Regards, Andrey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal > wrote: >>> But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. >>> Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. >>> >> >> May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :) >> Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any >> technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs > > Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) > some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to > get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with > zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues > and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; > btrfs is free from both. I'm sure that people with far more experience than I will comment— But considering that BTRFS is in the Linux Kernel today, the histories of other imported FSes (XFS), and the state of ZFS in FreeBSD this may not be strictly true. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal wrote: >> But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. >> Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. >> > > May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :) > Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any > technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; btrfs is free from both. Regards, Andrey > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 18:10 +0200, Ahmed Kamal wrote: > > But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. > > Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. > > > > May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :) > Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any > technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs The short answer from my point of view is yes. This doesn't really change the motivations for working on btrfs or the problems we're trying to solve. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
> But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. > Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. > May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :) Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] btrfs: implement FS_IOC_GETFLAGS/SETFLAGS/GETVERSION
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:11:55PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >Add support for the standard attributes set via chattr and read vis > >lsattr. Currently we store the attributes in the flags value in > >the btrfs inode, but I wonder whether we should split it into two so > >that we don't have to keep converting between the two formats. > > > > Imho, since inode items are of fixed size, is won't be possible > to avoid such workarounds like conversion between formats. > No? While the inode format is fixed it has 256 spare bits for expansion. But what I mean with the above is to split the current 64bit flags value into a a 32 bit internal flags and a 32bit user visible flags value and store the ioctl flags in the latter. OTOH every filesystem but extN seem to need some conversion so btrfs wouldn't be unusual at that. And the GETFLAGS/SETFLAGS flags value are pretty ugly anyway as they mix up flags for user visible behaviour with extN implementation details that shouldn't really need to be exposed to userspace. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:37:33AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Just a quick note about the recently announced purchase of Sun by > Oracle. This does not change Oracle's plans for Btrfs at all, and Btrfs > is still a key project for us. But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. (OTOH, acquiring Sun's patent portfolio… there are some strange places on earth where people care about software patents). -- Tomasz Torcz RIP is irrevelant. Spoofing is futile. xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl Your routes will be aggreggated. -- Alex Yuriev -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Btrfs development plans
Hello everyone, Just a quick note about the recently announced purchase of Sun by Oracle. This does not change Oracle's plans for Btrfs at all, and Btrfs is still a key project for us. Please, keep your btrfs contributions and testing coming ;) -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: "No space left on device" at 69%
On 2009-04-18, 09:20 GMT, Dirk Heinrichs wrote: > For testing purposes, I have put all my Gentoo portage (build, > distfiles, etc.) related LVs into one 10G btrfs with > 4 subvolumes. I guess it is the same as my problem at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495683 :) Best, Matěj -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
