Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Manuel Escudero 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 I've been expe

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Reindl Harald 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 gets ke

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Richard W.M. Jones 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 would get: > >

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 6:08 AM, JB wrote: > Ric Wheeler 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

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailLists 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 that are disk

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Genes MailLists 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 MailLists  wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>   I think RAID-5 s

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

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 w

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:21 AM, JB wrote: > Josef Bacik 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 > >

Btrfs status for F16

Hello, In order to hopefully (and I understand this is a unrealistically big hope) stem the amount of hostile comments and random remarks about Btrfs not being ready for F16 that I get with _every_ bz that get's filed against it, let me announce this as clearly as possible BTRFS WILL NOT BE THE D

Re: Btrfs status for F16

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: > On 8.8.2011 14:44, Josef Bacik wrote: >> I appreciate those who will continue to use it and report bugs, we are >> working very hard on trying to get everything more stable and it is a >> slow going process.  With your

Re: Btrfs status for F16

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: > On 08/08/2011 08:55 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: >>> On 8.8.2011 14:44, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>> I appreciate those who will continue to use it and report bugs, we

Re: BTRFS on LVM causes long fedora-storage-init run?

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 11:29:45AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >> Richard Shaw wrote: >> > I rebooted a few times just to make sure it's not a scheduled fsck >> > (not that there is a full fsck for BTRFS yet) and the hard drive light >>

Re: BTRFS on LVM causes long fedora-storage-init run?

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Josef Bacik wrote: >> What Tomasz said, and if that doesn't help use bootchart and upload >> the chart somewhere so I can see what's going on.  Thanks, > > I posted[1] my systemd-analyze results to the lis

Re: BTRFS on LVM causes long fedora-storage-init run?

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> What Tomasz said, and if that doesn't help use bootchart and upload >>> the chart somewhere so I

Re: BTRFS on LVM causes long fedora-storage-init run?

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 10/07/2011 12:19 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> I don't doubt it's btrfs, but bootchart will tell me which one of our >> kernel threads is running so I can tell_what_  in btrfs is taking it's >>

Re: Status of btrfs in rawhide

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote: > Hi, > > Is rawhide following current btrfs development releases with kernel > patches and userland programs?  Or, should we role our own?  I am > interested in testing only. > btrfs-progs hasn't changed much so you should be fine with what

Re: Status of btrfs in rawhide

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Matej Cepl wrote: > Dne 10.5.2011 23:49, Josef Bacik napsal(a): >> btrfs-progs hasn't changed much so you should be fine with whats in >> fedora.  If you want to be testing the latest and greatest it's >> probably better to either fo

Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2011-06-01)

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > I will be unable to attend tomorrow but I have concerns of making btrfs > default without a well tested fsck. I'm aware one is due soon but I don't > believe 3-4 months is enough time to test it well enough. On 2.6.38.x I > still get regular

Re: BTRFS concerns (was: Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2011-06-01))

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:15:59PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> I will be unable to attend tomorrow but I have concerns of making btrfs >> default without a well tested fsck. I'm aware one is due soon but I don't >> believe 3-4 months

Re: BTRFS concerns

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Genes MailLists wrote: > On 06/02/2011 01:14 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >>> >> >> These sort of issues are my priority and I've spent the last 2 months >> specifically working on the kvm performance differences between ext4 &g

Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2011-06-08)

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo > meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on > irc.freenode.net. > > Links to all tickets below can be found at: > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 >

Re: Speedup the availability of updates (was: Re: Push scripts, mash) pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback))

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said: >> > I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any >> > reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to >>

Re: Draft schedule for today's FESCO meeting (6th February 2012)

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo > meeting tomorrow at 18:00UTC (1:00pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on > irc.freenode.net. > > Links to all tickets below can be found at: > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report

Re: Draft schedule for today's FESCO meeting (6th February 2012)

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 10:51:37AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> We're running close to the wire on this but it looks like Chris will >> have fsck out for btrfs tomorrow, so I'd like to get fesco's opin

Re: btrfs "scrub" not included in F16?

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 7 February 2012 17:40, Josh Boyer wrote: >> The scrub commands weren't added in btrfs-progs until October of last year. >> The version F16 and rawhide has is just too old to contain that support. > > That worries me a little, seeing how

Re: phoronix benchmarks ext4 vs. btrfs

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:11 AM, David Quigley wrote: > On 03/09/2012 08:42, Przemek Klosowski wrote: >> >> On 03/09/2012 01:43 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 22:19 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: I'm not sure how useful 'time' is as a benchmark for file copies. >>>

Re: Fedora 15, new and exciting plans

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM, wrote: >> We have been spending a lot of time and thought trying to scheme >> about how to accelerate btrfs. At this point, it is actually fairly >> stable but still missing key things (most notably a fsck that can >> fix the file system!). >> >> Last week at plu

Re: Fedora 15, new and exciting plans

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 11/12/2010 03:58 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 11/12/2010 02:55 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: >>> On 11/12/2010 12:09 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>> Another criteria I

Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

Hello, So we're getting close to having a working fsck tool so I wanted to take the opportunity to talk about the future of BTRFS in Fedora. Coming up in F15 we're going to have the first release of Fedora where we don't need the special boot option to have the ability to format you filesystem as

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:51:50 -0500 > Josef Bacik wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> So we're getting close to having a working fsck tool so I wanted to >> take the opportunity to talk about the future of BTRF

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Tue, 22.02.11 14:51, Josef Bacik (jo...@toxicpanda.com) wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> So we're getting close to having a working fsck tool so I wanted to >> take the opportunity to talk about the future

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

2011/2/22 Jóhann B. : > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: >> So what are your thoughts?  Thanks, > > Will there be any performance penalties making this move? > Who knows, thats what testing is for :). There are some things that suck with BTRFS, b

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 14:51 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use >> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default. > > In my per

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 14:51:50 -0500, >  Josef Bacik wrote: >> >> 3) All the various little tools that we have for putting together >> LiveCD's that are very ext* centered.  I've not even looked at th

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Camilo Mesias wrote: > Hi > > I wanted to second these questions... > > 2011/2/22 Jóhann B. : >> Will there be any performance penalties making this move? > [...] >> What benefit will this switch bring to the novice desktop end users? >> >> Will the novice desktop

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser wrote: > On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote: >> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides the best >> experience for the users not based on "what we have been doing in the >> past" (i.e stagnation). > > *One* data corruption constitutes

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser  wrote: >>> On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote: >>>> Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provide

Re: BTRFS on servers (was Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora)

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >> I'm actually quite interested in btrfs especially for servers because >> of it's features > > For what it's worth, we've been running btrfs on our school fileservers > since

Re: BTRFS on servers (was Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora)

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 14:18 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: >> > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >> >> I'm actually q

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jon Masters wrote: >> In my personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can >> do a lot of volume-y things, and these are growing by the day, but I >> don't want my filesystem replacing a full volume manager and I am >> concer

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: > Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a): >> btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latter. > > BTRFS so far only makes my kernel panicking as it did anytime I have > been trying it since Fedora 9 (yes, I am crazy). Thi

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jon Masters wrote: > On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 17:33 -0500, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote: >> On 02/23/2011 04:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> > >> > And I'd like to counter-counter-propose that we just stop using ANY kind of >> > subvolumes or volume management by default a

Re: BTRFS vs LVM for VM storage (was: Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora)

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:51:50PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: >> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use >> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default. > > So

Re: fuse needs an update

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: >> Due to bug 493565[1], fuse needs to be updated. This bug has been around for >> a very long time, and no one can seem to reach the fuse maintainer. I see >> this bug daily on one sy

Re: fuse needs an update

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > 2010/6/8 Michael Cronenworth : >> Due to bug 493565[1], fuse needs to be updated. This bug has been around for >> a very long time, and no one can seem to reach the fuse maintainer. I see >> this bug daily on one system and I'm tired of it. C

Re: Btrfs as default filesystem for Fedora 23?

really well > now. > > Also, with kernel 4.1 imported into rawhide, we've now got performance > improvements for large (>20TB) filesystems (though it's been plenty fast for > my 48TB array). > > As I recall, Josef Bacik mentioned that he'd be pushing for Btrfs bec

Re: dnf is completly broken

There is a bugzilla, ranting on a mailing list every time you hit a bug makes you an unlikeable person who doesn't get taken seriously. Thanks, Josef On Sep 26, 2015 10:21 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote: > besides https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888 and the > ridicolous size of /var/

Re: dnf is completly broken

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 27.09.2015 um 13:57 schrieb Neal Gompa: >> >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 27.09.2015 um 11:27 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones: >> >> This is quite tiresome. dnf clearly isn't "completely brok

Re: dnf is completly broken

Being tired doesn't justify acting like my 5 year old. Thanks, Josef On September 27, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 27.09.2015 um 19:08 schrieb Josef Bacik: > This is unnecessarily combative and derogatory to a fellow > distribution, why are you going out of your way

Re: blivet-gui announcement

On Sep 5, 2014 5:05 AM, "Vratislav Podzimek" wrote: > > Good news, everyone! We (me and CC'd Vojtech Trefny) would like to > introduce you the next generation tool for storage management -- the > **blivet-gui** tool [1]_. It is a GUI tool based on the blivet python > library (originally Anaconda's

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On Oct 2, 2014 11:32 PM, "Andre Robatino" wrote: > > openSUSE 13.2, scheduled for release in November, will have btrfs as the > default filesystem. What are the chances that F22 will follow suit, assuming > openSUSE has no major problems with it? > > https://news.opensuse.org/2014/09/22/ > My pla

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On Oct 6, 2014 8:29 AM, "Gene Czarcinski" wrote: > > On 10/05/2014 08:25 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: >>> >>> On 10/05/2014 09:50 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 2, 201

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 10/06/2014 08:54 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> >> >> Well that's exactly what it is, go away I'm busy with other stuff :). The >> fact is I'm the only one who can drive btrfs as the default filesystem

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 10/6/14 9:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> Obviously we aren't in xfs/e2fsprogs territory, but it'll fix 90% of >> the problems and then the other 10% are just a matter of having an >> example to work off of.

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 10/06/2014 10:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >>> >>> On 10/06/2014 08:54 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>&

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 13:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> > Thanks James... I am aware of all the warnings. They might as well put up >> > a >> > skull & crossbones. I have all my dat

Re: /boot on Btrfs still not supported, main problem is anaconda and grubby

On Mar 17, 2015 3:30 PM, "Chris Murphy" wrote: > > What's it going to take to fix this? Ubuntu supports it, openSUSE > supports it, GRUB 2 has supported it for many years now. > > This is a 2.5 year old bug, with patches to fix the problem for ~9 > months, which have been tested and work > https:/

Re: /boot on Btrfs still not supported, main problem is anaconda and grubby

On Mar 20, 2015 8:15 AM, "Peter Robinson" wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Mar 17, 2015 3:30 PM, "Chris Murphy" wrote: > >> > >> What's it going to take to fix this? Ubuntu supports it, openSUSE >

Re: /boot on Btrfs still not supported, main problem is anaconda and grubby

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> >> What's it going to take to fix this? Ubuntu supports it, openSUSE >>> >> supports it, GRUB 2 has supported it for many years now. >>> >> >>> >> This is a 2.5 year old bug, with patches to fix the problem for ~9 >>> >> months, which have

Re: /boot on Btrfs still not supported, main problem is anaconda and grubby

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: >> Cool so then we use grubby for these other cases and use the grub2 >> stuff for the grub2 case which covers the majority of installs and >> lets us use btrfs fo

Re: /boot on Btrfs still not supported, main problem is anaconda and grubby

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:27 PM, drago01 wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:51 PM, drago01 wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Chris Murphy >>> wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:58 AM, drago01 wrote: > That is not the on

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/26/20 11:04 AM, Solomon Peachy wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:42:25AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: For laptop and workstation installs of Fedora, we want to provide file system features to users in a transparent fashion. We want to add new features, while reducing the amount of expertise nee

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/26/20 11:15 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:13:39AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: Not Fedora land, but Facebook installs it on all of our root devices, so millions of machines. We've done this for 5 years. It's worked out very well. Thanks, Josef, I'd lo

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/26/20 12:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:30:35PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: Obviously the Facebook scale, recoverability, and workload is going to be drastically different from a random Fedora user. But hardware wise we are pretty close, at least on the disk side

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/26/20 2:58 PM, James Szinger wrote: On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:30:02 -0500 Chris Adams wrote: So... I freely admit I have not looked closely at btrfs in some time, so I could be out of date (and my apologies if so). One issue that I have seen mentioned as an issue within the last week is stil

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/26/20 5:44 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 03:22:07PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: I described this case to the working group last week, because it hit us in production this winter. Somebody screwed up and suddenly pushed 2 extra copies of the whole website to everybody&#

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/27/20 4:35 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: On 2020-06-26 22:13, Justin Forbes wrote: Saying production on millions of systems is a bit misleading here, when you are talking about millions of systems at a single company. ...in a redundant configuration where losing a disk is tolerated by design

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/27/20 2:57 AM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: Le vendredi 26 juin 2020 à 12:30 -0400, Josef Bacik a écrit : On 6/26/20 11:15 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:13:39AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: Not Fedora land, but Facebook installs it on all of our root devices, so

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/27/20 9:57 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: I've been very clear from the outset that Facebook's fault tolerance is much higher than the average Fedora user. The only reason I've agreed to assist in answering questions and support this proposal is because I have multi-year data that shows our fail

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/27/20 4:53 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 1:23 PM Chris Murphy > wrote: The proposal has nothing to do with raid56, let alone by default. The installer doesn't offer it as an option. And it's not relevant to the desktop. We'r

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/29/20 5:33 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Josef Bacik: That being said I can make btrfs look really stupid on some workloads. There's going to be cases where Btrfs isn't awesome. We still use xfs for all our storage related tiers (think databases). Performance is always g

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/29/20 12:23 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: Maybe not a desktop question, but do you know btrfs's change attribute/i_version status? Does it default to bumping i_version on each change, or does that still need to be opted in? And has anyone measured the performance delta (i_version vs. noi_vers

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 6/29/20 2:23 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 6/29/20 8:39 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: On 6/29/20 5:33 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Josef Bacik: That being said I can make btrfs look really stupid on some workloads. There's going to be cases where Btrfs isn't awesome.  We still use xfs f

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 7/1/20 7:49 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote: Hi, On 01/07/2020 12:09, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 11:28:10AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: Hi, On 01/07/2020 07:54, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 03:15:23PM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrot

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 7/1/20 2:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:54:02AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Making btrfs opt-in for F33 and (assuming the result go well) opt-out for F34 could be good option. I know technically it is already opt-in, but it's not very visible or popular.

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 7/1/20 9:49 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Josef Bacik said: This sounds like a "wtf, why are you doing this btrfs?" sort of thing, but this is just the reality of using checksums. It's a checksum, not ECC. We don't know _which_ bits are fucked, we just kn

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 7/2/20 4:38 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/1/20 12:50 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: ... Integrity checking is highly valued by some and less by others. Considering that we know hardware isn't 100% reliable, and doesn't always report its own failures as expected, and hence why most file systems now

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

Yeah I mean the general discussion, not you specifically. Thanks, Josef On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:38 PM Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 7/2/20 4:44 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > We're talking about this issue like it's reasonable that xfs and ext4 > are going to allow the user

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 7/3/20 9:37 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/1/20 2:50 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: On 7/1/20 2:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:54:02AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Making btrfs opt-in for F33 and (assuming the result go well) opt-out for F34 could be good option

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 7/3/20 10:39 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/3/20 1:41 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: SSDs can fail in weird ways. Some spew garbage as they're failing, some go read-only. I've seen both. I don't have stats on how common it is for an SSD to go read-only as it fails, but once it happens you cannot fsck

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 7/9/20 1:51 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/6/20 12:07 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 8:40 PM Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/3/20 1:41 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: SSDs can fail in weird ways. Some spew garbage as they're failing, some go read-only. I've seen both. I don't have stats on

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 7/9/20 7:23 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/9/20 4:27 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/9/20 3:32 PM, Davide Cavalca via devel wrote: ... As someone on one of the teams at FB that has to deal with that, I can assure you all the scenarios you listed can and do happen, and they happen a lot. While

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On 7/9/20 9:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/9/20 8:22 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: On 7/9/20 7:23 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/9/20 4:27 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/9/20 3:32 PM, Davide Cavalca via devel wrote: ... As someone on one of the teams at FB that has to deal with that, I can assure

Re: F17 btrfsck crash

Hrm sorry, I need to update btrfs-progs in rawhide, I will try and get to that today. Thanks, Josef On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > I have an inconsequential F16 VM that uses btrfs. The VM went psycho for > unknown reasons and I had to force quit. Realizing btrfsck can't

Re: F17 btrfsck crash

Got it all updated, it's in koji, 0.19-18 is what you want. Thanks, Josef On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > If it's only updated in rawhide, what will be the state of btrfs-progs in F17? > > On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:10 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >>

Re: F17 btrfsck crash

n Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> Got it all updated, it's in koji, 0.19-18 is what you want.  Thanks, > > Thanks Josef. This is now available with a yum update and has fixed the > proble

Re: Guaranteed way to break btrfs

There was a problem with 3.3 kernels that we fixed in 3.4, please try Linus's most recent git tree and see if you have the same problems. Thanks, Josef On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:23 AM, valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > I found a perfect way how you can test small file issue in btrfs > be

Re: F17 TC1 DVD still no btrfs as install option?

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 01:34:07PM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote: >> On 25/04/12 09:48, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> > +1. I'd like to see this fixed before final. >> Yes, me too. Afaik, SuSE supports btrfs even for their enterprise distro. > >  For a

Re: F17 TC1 DVD still no btrfs as install option?

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Colin Walters wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 12:03 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 01:34:07PM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote: >> >> On 25/04/12 09:48, Vít

Re: F17 TC1 DVD still no btrfs as install option?

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Chris wrote: > 2012/4/25 Josef Bacik : >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Colin Walters wrote: >>> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 12:03 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Tomasz Torcz >>>> wrote:

Re: F17 TC1 DVD still no btrfs as install option?

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 25.04.2012 18:03, schrieb Josef Bacik: >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 01:34:07PM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote: >>>> On 25/04/12 09:48, Vít Ondr

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Feb 26, 2014 10:18 AM, "Jaroslav Reznik" wrote: > > - Original Message - > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Josh Boyer > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing, even if that > > thing isn't ready. I really don't want to wade through tons

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

; > >> Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma: > >>> On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote: > >>> > >>>> Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be > >>>> default in Fedora yet. Optional is fine but not default. > &

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> So if you were asking me "Are we removing btrfs from the install >>> options completely?

Transferring ownership of Ceph

Hello, Red Hat is going to take over maintainership of Ceph so I'm orphaning it and Kaleb Keithley is taking over it. Thanks, Josef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of

Re: Fedora IPv6 testing and improvements - request for ideas

So one thing I would suggest is testing ipv6 only environments. At Facebook we are running into and fixing a whole host of problems with NetworkManager, Anaconda, Dracut, etc. because they don't handle ipv6 only very well. It seems that having ipv4 enabled allows things to work well enough that n

Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID))

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:54 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 10/31/2012 11:42 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> It's already been pushed back once, the first iteration of newui was >> attempted to land in F-17 and was pushed back to F-18 if my memory >> serves me correctly. > > > Dont think

Re: Default boot/root filesystem

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:40 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 09/07/2013 10:35 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 9/6/13 5:48 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: >>> >>> According to this: >>> >>> >>> http://www.serverwatch.com/server-news/where-is

Re: XFS and trim

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Steven Haigh wrote: > Hi all, > > Firstly, Please CC me into replies as I'm not subscribed to this list. > > I'm trying to confirm that Fedora 18 has enabled trim for XFS filesystems. I > have added discard to the mount options in /etc/fstab - however I do not see

Re: PSA: Do not run 'dnf update' inside GNOME, KDE or any other graphical desktop on Fedora 24

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chris Murphy > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Chris Murphy >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> About the rewrite comment: that did not c

  1   2   >