Josef Bacik josef at toxicpanda.com writes:
...
We aren't aiming for hopefully stable, we're aiming for actually stable
and reasonably safe. If we don't meet certain basic requirements no
switch will be made and everything will carry on as normal.
I'm not trying to shove Btrfs down
On 07/14/2011 08:28 AM, JB wrote:
Josef Bacikjosefat toxicpanda.com writes:
...
We aren't aiming for hopefully stable, we're aiming for actually stable
and reasonably safe. If we don't meet certain basic requirements no
switch will be made and everything will carry on as normal.
I'm not
Ric Wheeler rwheeler at redhat.com writes:
...
Given that my family is from the hills of eastern
Kentucky, I also find the hill billie comment off putting.
...
Ric, no offense ... injecting Kentucky hills was misguided ... I happened to
visit the state few times and was impressed with how
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:50 AM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
I have difficulty swallowing the fact that there are so many Red Hat, Oracle,
and other famous technology names involved (officially or dev's private
contributions) in development of BTRFS, and at the same time they practice
such
On 07/14/2011 09:50 AM, JB wrote:
Ric Wheelerrwheelerat redhat.com writes:
...
Given that my family is from the hills of eastern
Kentucky, I also find the hill billie comment off putting.
...
Ric, no offense ... injecting Kentucky hills was misguided ... I happened to
visit the state
Dne 14.7.2011 09:28, JB napsal(a):
The original b-tree algorithm was a result of an academic study, formulation,
and empirical testing, and was subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Ehm, I don't claim to have any deep knowledge on the matter, but I have
here B-trees explained in Wirth (1975), and
Martin Langhoff martin.langhoff at gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:50 AM, JB jb.1234abcd at gmail.com wrote:
I have difficulty swallowing the fact that there are so many Red Hat,
Oracle,
and other famous technology names involved (officially or dev's private
contributions)
Good timing! I have a related BTRFS / Fedora 16 question.
I have used the btrfs Anaconda option, and I get btrfs appearing as
a choice in the menus. However if I just change the root filesystem
to btrfs, then I would get:
/boot /dev/sda2
PV
VG
Matej Cepl mcepl at redhat.com writes:
Dne 14.7.2011 09:28, JB napsal(a):
The original b-tree algorithm was a result of an academic study,
formulation,
and empirical testing, and was subjected to scientific scrutiny.
Ehm, I don't claim to have any deep knowledge on the matter, but I
Ric Wheeler rwheeler at redhat.com writes:
...
I think that it would be really rare to see pristine, academic algorithms
implemented exactly as a non-coding mathematician designed them in code :)
...
Well, not convinced ... :-)
The algorithm has to be taken holisticly - it has been
On 07/14/2011 11:08 AM, JB wrote:
Ric Wheelerrwheelerat redhat.com writes:
...
I think that it would be really rare to see pristine, academic algorithms
implemented exactly as a non-coding mathematician designed them in code :)
...
Well, not convinced ... :-)
The algorithm has to be
On 07/14/2011 01:07 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Reindl Haraldh.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 13.07.2011 23:54, schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
Farkas Levente wrote:
snip
That's not the case at all, I'm not sure where you are getting that.
If we don't have a
I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I
dont think we want to have raid on top of btrfs ... right?
Ric - what is the current status of RAID-5 ?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
Good timing! I have a related BTRFS / Fedora 16 question.
I have used the btrfs Anaconda option, and I get btrfs appearing as
a choice in the menus. However if I just change the root filesystem
to btrfs, then I
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 6:08 AM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Ric Wheeler rwheeler at redhat.com writes:
...
I think that it would be really rare to see pristine, academic algorithms
implemented exactly as a non-coding mathematician designed them in code :)
...
Well, not convinced ...
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:22:17AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Is this how F16 will be set up? The Feature page[1] suggests that LVM
will be turned off by default, in which case it should look more like:
That would involve changes to Anaconda, and as far as I know there's
nobody
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com wrote:
I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I
dont think we want to have raid on top of btrfs ... right?
Ric - what is the current status of RAID-5 ?
This requires some other big changes
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Well it should be more like
/boot/dev/sda1
swap/dev/sda2
btrfs
Maybe I don't understand this. Is btrfs on /dev/sda3, or are the swap
and root filesystems somehow combined on /dev/sda2? And if the
latter, how does one do
On 07/14/2011 03:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Well it should be more like
/boot/dev/sda1
swap/dev/sda2
btrfs
Maybe I don't understand this. Is btrfs on /dev/sda3, or are the swap
and root filesystems somehow combined
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 03:06:33PM +0100, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 07/14/2011 03:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Well it should be more like
/boot/dev/sda1
swap/dev/sda2
btrfs
Maybe I don't understand this. Is btrfs on
On 07/14/2011 02:54 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailListsli...@sapience.com wrote:
I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I
dont think we want to have raid on top of btrfs ... right?
Ric - what is the current status of
Am 14.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Eric Sandeen:
bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
unstable / unfinsihed packages should never be default in GA nor replace
existing and over a long time well working things - never!
You might have said the same thing about
On 07/14/2011 10:17 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 07/14/2011 02:54 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailListsli...@sapience.com wrote:
I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I
dont think we want to have raid on top of btrfs ... right?
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com wrote:
On 07/14/2011 10:17 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 07/14/2011 02:54 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailListsli...@sapience.com wrote:
I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 14.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Eric Sandeen:
bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
unstable / unfinsihed packages should never be default in GA nor replace
existing and over a long
On 7/13/11 9:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Eric Sandeen:
bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
unstable / unfinsihed packages should never be default in GA nor replace
existing and over a long time well working things - never!
Josef Bacik josef at toxicpanda.com writes:
...
I've already said
that if it's not in good shape by Alpha the switch won't even be made,
so quit your bitching.
Josef
Josef,
would it be possible, BEFORE (in case that) you decide to switch on before
Alpha, to present some test suite
On 7/14/11 10:21 AM, JB wrote:
Josef Bacik josef at toxicpanda.com writes:
...
I've already said
that if it's not in good shape by Alpha the switch won't even be made,
so quit your bitching.
Josef
Josef,
would it be possible, BEFORE (in case that) you decide to switch on before
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Josef Bacik josef at toxicpanda.com writes:
...
I've already said
that if it's not in good shape by Alpha the switch won't even be made,
so quit your bitching.
Josef
Josef,
would it be possible, BEFORE (in case that) you
On 07/14/2011 10:59 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Another (Q) - once the format changes, will there be tools to change
the online format of existing filesystems - or will we need to delete
and start fresh ?
All format changes happen automatically (usually with a mount option
so as not to
On 07/14/2011 11:12 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Something tells me if btrfs had been called ext5 people would
just nod their heads and move on. ;)
Heh ... like this ... Its not too late is it :-)
How about ext5-btrfs - and high level user space tools can shorten it
to ext5 :-)
--
devel
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:10 AM, JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, then you have to read the thread more carefully before you bark back -
right in the first OP's post you have references, e.g.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/18/144
Heh - now that you provide links it's better... anyway,
Josef Bacik josef at toxicpanda.com writes:
...
We've reached the point where we really need wider user
testing, because no amount of testing we do will ever be able to match
up to the crazy things users do.
Please understand - convincing people (technical and non-technical) to
install a
On 07/14/2011 05:26 PM, JB wrote:
Now just a loud thinking ...
Have you thought about first preparing a CD (even a live CD) with BTRFS and
some extra preinstalled software like VirtualBox etc just for testing ?
What, you mean like the live and non-live Fedora ISOs that have had btrfs
support
Bryn M. Reeves bmr at redhat.com writes:
On 07/14/2011 05:26 PM, JB wrote:
Now just a loud thinking ...
Have you thought about first preparing a CD (even a live CD) with BTRFS and
some extra preinstalled software like VirtualBox etc just for testing ?
What, you mean like the live and
On 07/14/2011 05:48 PM, JB wrote:
Good. Perhaps a weekly snapshot CD, with the latest BTRFS and related utils,
so that the testing would be more up-to-date and meaningful.
JB
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes/
Regards,
Bryn.
--
devel mailing list
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Eric Sandeen:
bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
unstable / unfinsihed packages should never be default in GA nor replace
existing and over a long time well
Bryn M. Reeves bmr at redhat.com writes:
On 07/14/2011 05:48 PM, JB wrote:
Good. Perhaps a weekly snapshot CD, with the latest BTRFS and related utils,
so that the testing would be more up-to-date and meaningful.
JB
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes/
Regards,
On 07/14/2011 12:31 PM, JB wrote:
OK.
Post every week on user, testers, and devel lists:
- BTRFS testing reminder
- BTRFS info (short notes; entries; pointers to any info, info/man pages)
- test instructions
- a link where to obtain latest Fedora snapshot/nightly live composes with
Michael Cronenworth mike at cchtml.com writes:
...
If you're that concerned about the quality of Fedora 16 then I would
suggest you join the test list, become a proventester, and attend QA
meetings.
(Ranting on this list and making demands won't make it happen.)I am not
ranting
I am
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:31:44 + (UTC)
JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Bryn M. Reeves bmr at redhat.com writes:
On 07/14/2011 05:48 PM, JB wrote:
Good. Perhaps a weekly snapshot CD, with the latest BTRFS and
related utils, so that the testing would be more up-to-date and
Bernd Stramm bernd.stramm at gmail.com writes:
...
Would you help out with testing if given these specific instructions?
If not yourself, who would actually do this?
...
I am only suggesting a mini form of so called user testing (that's what it is
called and practised in a software
On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 18:09:53 + (UTC)
JB jb.1234a...@gmail.com wrote:
Bernd Stramm bernd.stramm at gmail.com writes:
...
Would you help out with testing if given these specific
instructions? If not yourself, who would actually do this?
...
I am only suggesting a mini form of so
Bernd Stramm bernd.stramm at gmail.com writes:
...
Try it and see the results. Perhaps it will work
But that is my point - you are not willing to do any part of this
yourself. You are only instructing others to do specific work.
I am not instructing anybody. I am suggesting things.
I
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 01:06:45PM -0400, John Dulaney wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.07.2011 03:57, schrieb Eric Sandeen:
bleeeding edge / modern technology is not the same as dangerous defaults
unstable / unfinsihed packages should never be
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 17:49 +, JB wrote:
I am just suggesting how the devs can reach their audience and communicate
with them for a mutual benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs
- ajax
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
Adam Jackson ajax at redhat.com writes:
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 17:49 +, JB wrote:
I am just suggesting how the devs can reach their audience and communicate
with them for a mutual benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs
- ajax
Well, I woke up
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 16:48 +, JB wrote:
Bryn M. Reeves bmr at redhat.com writes:
On 07/14/2011 05:26 PM, JB wrote:
Now just a loud thinking ...
Have you thought about first preparing a CD (even a live CD) with BTRFS
and
some extra preinstalled software like VirtualBox etc
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 12:36 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 07/14/2011 12:31 PM, JB wrote:
OK.
Post every week on user, testers, and devel lists:
- BTRFS testing reminder
- BTRFS info (short notes; entries; pointers to any info, info/man pages)
- test instructions
- a link
Today I'll be switching from BTRFS to Ext4 again because of the troubles
I've been having with
the New Linux Filesystem. As BTRFS is going to be the Default in F16 I
wanted the developers to
know what kind of troubles I've been experiencing with this FS in F15 so
they can take a look
at them in
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Manuel Escudero jmlev...@gmail.com wrote:
Today I'll be switching from BTRFS to Ext4 again because of the troubles
I've been having with
the New Linux Filesystem. As BTRFS is going to be the Default in F16 I
wanted the developers to
know what kind of troubles
2011/7/13 Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Manuel Escudero jmlev...@gmail.com
wrote:
Today I'll be switching from BTRFS to Ext4 again because of the troubles
I've been having with
the New Linux Filesystem. As BTRFS is going to be the Default in F16 I
On 07/13/2011 11:14 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Manuel Escudero jmlev...@gmail.com wrote:
Today I'll be switching from BTRFS to Ext4 again because of the troubles
I've been having with
the New Linux Filesystem. As BTRFS is going to be the Default in F16 I
wanted
Farkas Levente wrote:
if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
as a default fs for f16. so please postpone it at least to f17.
If f16 gets kernel 3.1 (or backported stuff into 3.0), IMHO there is no
reason to slip it one release.
--
devel mailing list
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 16:54:44 -0500,
Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote:
if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
as a default fs for f16. so please postpone it at least to f17.
If f16 gets kernel 3.1 (or backported stuff into
Am 13.07.2011 23:51, schrieb Farkas Levente:
So there's my long ass explanation of why VMs on Btrfs suck. I'm
sorry, I'm aware of the problem and I'm trying to fix it, but it's a
slow going process.
if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
as a default fs for
Am 13.07.2011 23:54, schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
Farkas Levente wrote:
if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
as a default fs for f16. so please postpone it at least to f17.
If f16 gets kernel 3.1 (or backported stuff into 3.0), IMHO there is no
reason to
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 13.07.2011 23:54, schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
Farkas Levente wrote:
if you said that this's the current state of btrfs than it's not ready
as a default fs for f16. so please postpone it at least to f17.
If f16
On 7/13/11 4:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.07.2011 23:51, schrieb Farkas Levente:
So there's my long ass explanation of why VMs on Btrfs suck. I'm
sorry, I'm aware of the problem and I'm trying to fix it, but it's a
slow going process.
if you said that this's the current state of btrfs
2011/7/13 Eric Sandeen sand...@redhat.com
On 7/13/11 4:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.07.2011 23:51, schrieb Farkas Levente:
So there's my long ass explanation of why VMs on Btrfs suck. I'm
sorry, I'm aware of the problem and I'm trying to fix it, but it's a
slow going process.
60 matches
Mail list logo
