On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 05:49:03PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> > For what it's worth, this is really needed, and overdue. I have
> > repeatedly failed Fedora OS release upgrades on different machines by
> > running out of root fs space. I think the default / is around 50GB, and
> > it's too
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:17 PM Peter Gordon wrote:
> This is a good argument for having Fedora officially support BtrFS as a
> possible installation option, yes;
It already is a release blocking (supported) file system for install
time option. Has been for ~10 years.
> BtrFS might have
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 3:44 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
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 14:04 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> [...]
>
> Surely if xfs is good enough for RHEL, and btrfs is
> at least 10x more reliable than xfs, that suggests btrfs should
This is a good argument for having Fedora officially support BtrFS as a
possible installation option,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 3:22 PM Przemek Klosowski via devel
wrote:
>
> I remember that two issues that made me apprehensive wrt. BTRFS were its
> handling of the 'disk full' situation, and lack of a staightforward
> 'fsck' workflow. I think the first issue has been resolved, and we
> probably
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's
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:37 PM Alex Thomas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:25 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:11 PM Alex Thomas wrote:
> > >
> > > Once question, are we looking at using a layout like openSUSE is
> > > doing? ( https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:BTRFS )
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:31 PM Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 23:21, Alex Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Once question, are we looking at using a layout like openSUSE is
>> doing? ( https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:BTRFS ) utilizing subvolumes, or
>> are we looking at something like
>>
>>
Ok, I thought I saw a proposal by you to change the default btrfs
layout to something like openSUSE's using subvolumes, but now, of
course, I cannot find it.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:25 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:11 PM Alex Thomas wrote:
> >
> > Once question, are we
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 23:21, Alex Thomas wrote:
> Once question, are we looking at using a layout like openSUSE is
> doing? ( https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:BTRFS ) utilizing subvolumes, or
> are we looking at something like
>
> /boot/efi > EFI (FAT32)
> / > btrfs
>
BTW that layout.
Anaconda
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:11 PM Alex Thomas wrote:
>
> Once question, are we looking at using a layout like openSUSE is
> doing? ( https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:BTRFS ) utilizing subvolumes, or
> are we looking at something like
>
> /boot/efi > EFI (FAT32)
> / > btrfs
>
We are planning on using
Once question, are we looking at using a layout like openSUSE is
doing? ( https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:BTRFS ) utilizing subvolumes, or
are we looking at something like
/boot/efi > EFI (FAT32)
/ > btrfs
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 4:45 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at
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's VM. The
> website is mostly metadata,
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that btrfs is also
important for our plans to preserve system responsiveness under heavy
load, https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/154.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:22 pm, Przemek Klosowski via devel
wrote:
For what it's worth, this is really
On 6/26/20 1:43 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
One issue that I have
seen mentioned as an issue within the last week is still the problem of
running out of space when it still looks like there's space free. I
didn't read the responses, so not sure of the resolution, but I remember
that being a "thing"
On 6/26/20 12:31 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
That pattern will change with btrfs. There will be fewer of some problems,
more of others, and the messages will be different. fsck.ext4 is
pretty much all we have, all we're used to, and it's a binary
pass/fail. Even though we're talking about edge cases
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:05 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:45 pm, Markus Larsson
> wrote:
> > I strongly agree. BTRFS has been 5 years from production ready for
> > almost a decade now, please don't force this on users that doesn't
> > know any better.
>
> This is
On 26 June 2020 21:32:31 CEST, Igor Raits
wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA512
>>
>> Josef's server parks is a bit of a different use case than laptops as
>> other people has already pointed out.
>> If you want data on how it works in a desktop/laptop scenario talk to
>>
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:30 AM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said:
> > 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 21:22 +0200, Markus Larsson wrote:
>
> On 26 June 2020 21:04:00 CEST, Michael Catanzaro <
> mcatanz...@gnome.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:45 pm, Markus Larsson
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I strongly agree. BTRFS has
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
On 26 June 2020 21:04:00 CEST, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:45 pm, Markus Larsson
>wrote:
>> I strongly agree. BTRFS has been 5 years from production ready for
>> almost a decade now, please don't force this on users that doesn't
>> know any better.
>
>This is hard to
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:58 pm, James Szinger
wrote:
Yes, it happened to me last week. The workstation has been upgraded
since F25 and is now at F31. A yum update last week ran a restorecon
-r / which filled up the filesystem and RAM and swap. The 460 GB
filesystem had about 140GB of real
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:45 pm, Markus Larsson
wrote:
I strongly agree. BTRFS has been 5 years from production ready for
almost a decade now, please don't force this on users that doesn't
know any better.
This is hard to square with the fact that it's already being used in
production on
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 still the
> problem of running out of
On 26 June 2020 16:58:19 CEST, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>On 26.06.2020 16:42, 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
I couldn't believe it either when I saw the proposal, so 2010-ish :)
Anyway I'm in great favour of this proposal and I'd love to see btrfs the
default.
I personally use it in all of my systems (desktops, laptops and workstations)
except for servers, where it lacks the reliability on some raid
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 1:31 PM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said:
> > 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
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:30 AM Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> On Fr, 26.06.20 10:42, Ben Cotton (bcot...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BtrfsByDefault
>
> If this is decided to be the way to go, please work with kernel
> maintainers to make btrfs.ko a built-in
Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said:
> 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 needed to deal with
> situations like
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:45 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BtrfsByDefault
>
Related: Chromebooks are using btrfs in a particular way. ChromeOS has
something called Crostini which is a set of technologies they use for
enabling native Linux app support. This is
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.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 05:32:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> btrfs is not a 1-1 equivalent of ext4, because the scope of btrfs is
> much broader. It should likely be compared against some combo of
> existing functionality, such as ext4+devicemapper, to get a fairer
> picture.
Well,
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. Thanks,
Thanks. I guess it's really
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 04:58:19PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 26.06.2020 16:42, 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
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:58 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> I'm strongly against this proposal. BTRFS is the most unstable file
> system I ever seen. It can break up even under an ideal conditions and
> lead to a complete data loss. There are lots of complaints and bug
> reports in Linux
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 love to hear your
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:36, Solomon Peachy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:15:54AM -0400, 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.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 17:30 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fr, 26.06.20 10:42, Ben Cotton (bcot...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BtrfsByDefault
>
> If this is decided to be the way to go, please work with
On Fr, 26.06.20 10:42, Ben Cotton (bcot...@redhat.com) wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BtrfsByDefault
If this is decided to be the way to go, please work with kernel
maintainers to make btrfs.ko a built-in kernel module, so that
initrd-less boots work... (it's kinda pointless
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:05, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
[..]
> I'm strongly against this proposal. BTRFS is the most unstable file
> system I ever seen.
I would be really interested how you came to that conclusion (how did you
measure that?).
Do you have
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:15:54AM -0400, 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,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:15:24AM -0400, Michael Watters wrote:
> Why not zfs?
We cannot include ZFS in Fedora for legal reasons. Additionally, ZFS is not
really intended for the laptop use case.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
devel
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:42:25AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> Boot on Btrfs
>
> * Instead of a 1G ext4 boot, create a 1G Btrfs boot.
> * Advantage: Makes it possible to include in a snapshot and rollback
> regime. GRUB has stable support for Btrfs for 10+ years.
GRUB2 btrfs support
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 love to hear your comments on any differences between that
Why not zfs?
On 6/26/2020 10:42 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BtrfsByDefault
>
> == Summary ==
>
> 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
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 04:58:19PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 26.06.2020 16:42, 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
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 04:58:19PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> I'm strongly against this proposal. BTRFS is the most unstable file
> system I ever seen. It can break up even under an ideal conditions and
> lead to a complete data loss. There are lots of complaints and bug
> reports in
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
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 needed to deal with
> situations like
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BtrfsByDefault
Wow! Is it 2010 already? Time flies! :)
In seriousness: thanks for all of the effort put into this change proposal,
and the impressive list of change owners. I'm following the discussion here
with much interest!
--
Matthew Miller
On 26.06.2020 16:42, 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 needed to deal with
> situations like
301 - 352 of 352 matches
Mail list logo
