I've noticed scary reports regarding fragmentation on btrfs, some fairly recent
(within last 6 months). I'm interested in considering btrfs for my next f15
install, but should I be concerned about this issue? Is it expected to be
resolved?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 2011-02-26 at 17:33-05 Lyos Gemini Norezel lyos.gemininore...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 02/23/2011 06:38 PM, James Ralston wrote:
Separate LVM logical volumes can help mitigate consumption-based
DoS attacks.
For example: if /tmp and /var/tmp are separate LVM logical
volumes, then a
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.
Sorry I'm a bit late on this gentle discussion, but I have one
question about this:
I use LVM to
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 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.
Sorry I'm a bit late on
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 and just default to plain old
partitions. IMHO, LVM causes more
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org 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
On 02/26/2011 05:33 PM, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
This subvolume nonsense has no real place on any home computer/consumer
device.
...
Having more than 3 partitions on ANY system other than production
servers seems foolish at best.
To have it as default on a modern operating system is
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 and just default to plain old
partitions. IMHO, LVM causes more problems than it fixes. Sure, you can
easily add storage from
On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 17:33 -0500, Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote:
Having more than 3 partitions on ANY system other than production
servers seems foolish at best.
To have it as default on a modern operating system is nothing short of
insanity.
I'm not sure why your mail is so strident,
Dne 27.2.2011 06:51, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
I'm not sure why your mail is so strident, because we don't default to
that. The default Fedora layout is either /boot , swap , / or /boot ,
swap , / , and /home . Okay, that last one is four, but only if you
count swap.
He confuses mountpoints
Dne 24.2.2011 20:54, Ric Wheeler napsal(a):
Can we have pointers to these crashes or BZ reports please? As Josef has
noted, btrfs has been quite stable in our testing and we are certainly
going to pursue any reports.
Will do ... I am hesitant to do so, because so many of my previous bug
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheeler rwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/24/2011 08:44 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
On 02/25/2011 04:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheelerrwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/24/2011 08:44 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
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ric Wheeler rwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/25/2011 04:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheelerrwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
btrfs
On 02/25/2011 08:52 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ric Wheelerrwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/25/2011 04:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheelerrwhee...@redhat.comwrote:
On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 23.2.2011
On 2/25/11 2:54 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 24.2.2011 20:54, Ric Wheeler napsal(a):
Can we have pointers to these crashes or BZ reports please? As Josef has
noted, btrfs has been quite stable in our testing and we are certainly
going to pursue any reports.
Will do ... I am hesitant to do so,
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 02:25:26PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
snapshotted every time we perform a package/admin operation (and
perhaps also just on regular intervals for good measure), what would
we then gain by adding a read-only rootfs to the mix?
Security, robustness: you can be
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). This is absolutely not
meant as anything personal against Josef
On 02/23/2011 06:01 PM, James Ralston wrote:
On 2011-02-23 at 13:41-05 Peter Jonespjo...@redhat.com wrote:
dm-crypt still just throws REQ_FLUSH away instead of figuring out
the block remaps involved and issuing the right bios. Of course,
this is a problem with dm-crypt and _any_ filesystem.
On 2011-02-23 at 23:32-06 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
On 02/23/2011 05:38 PM, James Ralston wrote:
None of these issues is a dealbreaker, but they *are* losses of
functionality versus what LVM offers.
LVM isn't going anywhere. It just won't be the default during a
fresh
On 02/24/2011 08:44 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). This is absolutely
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com 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
On 2011-02-24 at 16:02-05 Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
I think that if I could get a large base to test for F15 that we
could squash most/all of the problems that crop up from that to be
in great shape for default in F16.
I think you'd increase your chances of getting lots of
On 02/23/2011 01:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Various things, better data integrity to start with, and if you
install the yum-fs-snapshot you have the ability to rollback easily.
So we got the above + What Lennart mentioned as benefits to the end user.
Now if we continue to hang on to the
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org 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 personal opinion, this
On Tue, 22.02.11 22:25, Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) 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 personal opinion, this
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org 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 personal opinion, this
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 14:51:50 -0500,
Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com 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 this
yet,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org 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 personal opinion, this
Hi
I wanted to second these questions...
2011/2/22 Jóhann B. johan...@gmail.com:
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 end user ever take advantages of any of the features
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Camilo Mesias cam...@mesias.co.uk wrote:
Hi
I wanted to second these questions...
2011/2/22 Jóhann B. johan...@gmail.com:
Will there be any performance penalties making this move?
[...]
What benefit will this switch bring to the novice desktop end users?
Josef,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
Your impression is wrong, there has been quite a bit of work done to
make BTRFS work well on small devices, it is the default filesystem
for meego which goes on phones, which is much smaller than anything
you are
On 02/22/2011 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 personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes,
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 EPIC FAIL. Btrfs is too young,
and will be for yet a while
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser jrei...@bitwagon.com 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
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 09:27 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiser jrei...@bitwagon.com 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
On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiserjrei...@bitwagon.com 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
On 2/23/11 5:38 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 02/23/2011 01:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Various things, better data integrity to start with, and if you
install the yum-fs-snapshot you have the ability to rollback easily.
So we got the above + What Lennart mentioned as benefits to the end
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiserjrei...@bitwagon.com wrote:
On 02/23/2011 05:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
Defaults should be chooses on the metric what provides
On 02/23/2011 03:33 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
I'm actually not that worried about corruption as that is something that
can be fixed once discovered. What creeps me out about btrfs at the moment
is this:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:33:26 -0500
Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
On 02/23/2011 03:27 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:18 AM, John Reiserjrei...@bitwagon.com
wrote:
On
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 07:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org 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,
On Wed, 23.02.11 11:41, Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) wrote:
You seem to spend a lot of time during your installs undoing all the
new things that were done for the release. Perhaps a rapid changing,
bleeding-edge distribution isn't quite suited to your needs. Maybe
you would be
On 02/23/2011 11:41 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
Again, I feel the solution is to have a Fedora architect whose role is
to realize the problems caused by seemingly isolated changes, and stop
them from propagating.
Fedora historically relies on an open source model for this - there
are a lot of
On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is
shrunk down to be installed which creates a bad fs layout which has
performance implications.
Can you expand upon this more? The filesystem is shrunk down when the
live image is
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 15:07:55 Peter Jones wrote:
1) can btrfs do encrypted volumes?
Not yet. Although this was a planned feature at some point, according to
Josef, nobody has done it yet.
If you want to stack it on top of dm-crypt there are caveats as well.
From btrfs-wiki:
btrfs
On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is
shrunk down to be installed which creates a bad fs layout which has
performance implications.
Can you expand upon this more? The
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:41:49AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
Again, I feel the solution is to have a Fedora architect whose role is
to realize the problems caused by seemingly isolated changes, and stop
them from propagating. You don't just replace years of UNIX (or Linux)
history/heritage
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:54:58AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is
shrunk down to be installed which creates a bad fs layout which has
On 2/23/11 12:15 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:54:58AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is
shrunk down to be installed which
On 02/23/2011 01:15 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:54:58AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 2/23/11 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 2/23/11 5:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
This would be a great thing in general since the default ext* image is
shrunk down to be installed which
On 02/23/2011 12:50 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 15:07:55 Peter Jones wrote:
1) can btrfs do encrypted volumes?
Not yet. Although this was a planned feature at some point, according to
Josef, nobody has done it yet.
If you want to stack it on top of dm-crypt
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 September. After a few teething problems (fixed by
increasing
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com 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
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
LVM is functional for enterprise environments but awful for the common
home or office cases.
Define awful. I make use of it all the time on home and office
desktops and even my notebook computer. It makes it easy to reassign
disk
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 14:18 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com 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
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:38:05PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Define awful. I make use of it all the time on home and office
desktops and even my notebook computer. It makes it easy to reassign
disk space from purpose A to purpose B (it would be easier if there was
a way to shrink a mounted
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 07:49:49PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
You can't move PVs. You need a separate /boot. If you use more than one
disk then it adds significant fragility to the boot process. It slows
down booting. It provides some functionality that's hugely useful in a
small number
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 14:18 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 16:19 +0100, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
I'm actually quite
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
You can't move PVs.
What do you think pvmove does?
You need a separate /boot.
That's needed for more than just LVM (and probably won't go away, as it
is a lot simpler to handle a single method in the installer).
If you use more
Hi.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:38:05 -0600, Chris Adams wrote
Define awful. I make use of it all the time on home and office
desktops and even my notebook computer. It makes it easy to reassign
disk space from purpose A to purpose B (it would be easier if there
was a way to shrink a mounted
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:08:08PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
You can't move PVs.
What do you think pvmove does?
Move PEs from one PV to another. You can't move a PV.
You need a separate /boot.
That's needed for more than just
On 02/23/2011 03:33 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:08:08PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrettmj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
You can't move PVs.
What do you think pvmove does?
Move PEs from one PV to another. You can't move a PV.
You need a
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 02:08:08PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
You can't move PVs.
What do you think pvmove does?
Move PEs from one PV to another. You can't move a
Once upon a time, Ralf Ertzinger fed...@camperquake.de said:
If you never tried the kind of freedom BTRFS and ZFS give you for
shifting around disk space, try it. Seriously. Then you'll see where
the awful comes from. In perspective it really is.
You cut out the parts of my email where I said
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 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
On 02/23/2011 07:41 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 02/23/2011 12:50 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
If you want to stack it on top of dm-crypt there are caveats as well.
Right, which is what we'd wind up doing in the encrypted case.
From btrfs-wiki:
btrfs volumes on top of dm-crypt block devices (and
On 2011-02-22 at 14:51-05 Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
I don't think btrfs subvolumes are capable of replacing LVM
functionality quite yet.
Here are two
On 02/23/2011 01:33 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Well I don't think cleaning up the existing patches will be that big
of a deal, it's mostly a matter of testing. The problem with GRUB2 is
it's GPLv3, explicitly to be a giant pain in the ass for porting any
new fs to GRUB since we're all GPLv2
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:51:50 -0500
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 of BTRFS in Fedora.
...snip...
1) GRUB support. Edward Shishkin did GRUB1 patches for BTRFS a
1) Fedora 16 ships with BTRFS as the default root filesystem.
2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
2) Anaconda support. I've already talked with Will Woods about this
some. Really anaconda will
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:51:50 -0500
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 of BTRFS in Fedora.
1) GRUB support. Edward Shishkin did GRUB1 patches for BTRFS a while
ago, but they were obviously never merged upstream and were also not
included into fedora. These would either need to be cleaned up and
put into our grub package, or we'd need to put /boot on a different
filesystem.
On 02/22/2011 02:51 PM, 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 BTRFS in Fedora.
Coming up in F15 we're going to have the first release of Fedora where
...
So what are your thoughts?
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 of BTRFS in Fedora.
Coming up in F15 we're going to have the first release of Fedora where
we don't
[...btrfs and read-only root,/etc...]
Music to my ears.
Glad you're working on this.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Josef Bacik writes:
2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
Just to clarify -- F16 will still have LVM, but not used by default.
I believe that there's a huge number of existing systems that are
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?
I ran it on my workstation when F13 came out with updates+snapshots and while
updating my desktop responsiveness was well not so good.
Novice
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de 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 of BTRFS in Fedora.
2011/2/22 Jóhann B. johan...@gmail.com:
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, but so it goes
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 personal opinion, this is a poor design decision. Yes, BTRFS can
do a lot of volume-y things, and
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 14:51:50 -0500,
Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com 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 this
yet, but I assume it's going to be kind of a pain.
I like to see live CDs
82 matches
Mail list logo
