Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Am 2017-12-29 21:35, schrieb Adam Borowski: resize2fs -b $DEV tune2fs -O metadata_csum $DEV fsck.ext4 -D $DEV According to this wiki: https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Ext4_Metadata_Checksums should we also use option journal_checksum on mount? Jochen

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl): [enabling metadata checksums on relatively old ext4 filesystems:] > Thus, if you created your filesystem with mkfs.ext4 older than > stretch/ascii, it's vital that you do the following, on an unmounted > filesystem (ie, need to boot from alternate

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 08:41:13PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 01:15:10 +0100 > Harald Arnesen wrote: > > > I see what you mean, and I have never had a problem with ext4 either. > > But I have used btrfs on all my main machines for the last years, and > >

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On 29/12/17 13:57, Rick Moen wrote: > One can also reasonably say that the ext2/ext3/ext4 codebase has > benefited from more real-world testing than any other *ix fileystem code > in history. (ext4 departs significantly more from ext3 than the latter > did from ext2, as detailed here: >

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 08:49:56PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > > btrfs is still scarily beta after rather a lot of years of development. That's what worries me about btrfs. ''' ''' > As for its state: btrfs is, well, btrfs. You get

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:11:35AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > > In other words, I prioritized the extreme amount of user testing of > ext4 over the obvious convenience of btrfs. My prioritization isn't > universal: In fact, I'm probably in the minority. But it's worked for > me. I'm in the same

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com): > On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 01:15:10 +0100 > Harald Arnesen wrote: > > > I see what you mean, and I have never had a problem with ext4 either. > > But I have used btrfs on all my main machines for the last years, and > > have not had

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 01:15:10 +0100 Harald Arnesen wrote: > I see what you mean, and I have never had a problem with ext4 either. > But I have used btrfs on all my main machines for the last years, and > have not had any (filesystem) problems with them either. I'd like to >

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Den 2017-12-28 17:11, skrev Steve Litt: > That's exactly my point. To do something better than my backup > solution, I would have needed to go with something less tested, with > less complete supporting software, and something I trust less than > ext4. I haven't had ext4 mess up on me in at least

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Le 28/12/2017 à 20:49, Adam Borowski a écrit : On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: btrfs is still scarily beta after rather a lot of years of development. Its prospects have dimmed further now that Red Hat have dropped it from their roadmap. And why would Red Hat matter?

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Adam Borowski wrote (excerpted): > As for its state: btrfs is, well, btrfs. You get both extremely powerful > data protection features you won't want to live without, and WTF level > caveats. I wouldn't recommend using btrfs unless you know where the corpses > are buried. > > But if you do, you

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > btrfs is still scarily beta after rather a lot of years of development. > Its prospects have dimmed further now that Red Hat have dropped it from > their roadmap. And why would Red Hat matter? It's similar to as if Apple dropped an

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:03:12PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote: > Le 27/12/2017 à 01:05, Hendrik Boom a écrit : > > As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat > > available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs. > >     I have tried btrfs; it still runs on a few servers I have

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Quoting Dr. Nikolaus Klepp (dr.kl...@gmx.at): > Am Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 schrieb Rick Moen: > > Quoting Harald Arnesen (har...@skogtun.org): > > > My one-time colleague Ted T'so once wrote an excellent piece, that I > > can't find at the moment, about how ext2/ext3 code had necessarily >

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Steve Litt wrote: > That's exactly my point. To do something better than my backup > solution, I would have needed to go with something less tested, with > less complete supporting software, and something I trust less than > ext4. I haven't had ext4 mess up on me in at

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 01:33:43 +1100 Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 28/12/17 15:05, Rick Moen wrote: > > ECC RAM is not sufficient to catch all bad RAM problems, only some. > > Back in 2006, I had an interesting case of this: > >

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:33:13 +0100 Harald Arnesen wrote: > Den 28.12.2017 01:51, skrev Steve Litt: > > > The one downfall of my method is if you absolutely, positively need > > atomic backups: database files, for instance. You'd need to stop > > work on the computer being

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On 12/27/2017 01:34 PM, taii...@gmx.com wrote: Please remember that all RAID should have ECC RAM and when it comes to XFS it is MANDATORY to avoid massive data corruption. Ahh late night typo for me, correction - ZFS not XFS. ___ Dng mailing list

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On 28/12/17 11:51, Steve Litt wrote: > Being a fan of simplicity, I use ext4 on all partitions. No LVM: I > don't want the extra layer. With things like bind mount I can > temporarily move parts of one filetree to a different partition, and > the next time I full-install or buy a new computer or

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On 28/12/17 15:05, Rick Moen wrote: > ECC RAM is not sufficient to catch all bad RAM problems, only some. > Back in 2006, I had an interesting case of this: > http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2006-December/002662.html > http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2006-December/002668.html >

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Den 2017-12-28 12:18, skrev KatolaZ: > I lost several filesystems with buggy reiserfs versions, back in the > days, and refused to use it ever again, basically because ext3 had > become reliable and dependable in the meanwhile. Then Hans Raiser > stopped its development, for other reasons... He

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

> ext3/ext4 are solid fs, and have > always been. the lost+found folder is a remainder of the ext2 era, and > is not even mandatory any more, AFAIU. lost+found is required since ext3+ext4 permit mounting as ext2, which requires it. A poor reason, perhaps, but put differently getting rid of a

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr): > I'm reluctant to use ext3/ext4 because I don't understand why they > still have this strange lost+found directory, which signs a kind of > weakness. It's just a receiving area for fragments (inodes without corresponding filenames) that might in the future

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:03:12PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote: > Le 27/12/2017 à 01:05, Hendrik Boom a écrit : > >As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat > >available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs. > >     I switched from ext2 to Reiserfs many years ago, when Reiser was the

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On 12/28/2017 01:03 PM, Didier Kryn wrote: [snip]>     From reading this thread, I learned that ZFS has severe hardware > requirements; If all features are enabled then the RAM requirements are outrageous. However, some of the memory hogs might not be missed if they are turned off. Depends on

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Le 27/12/2017 à 01:05, Hendrik Boom a écrit : As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs.     I switched from ext2 to Reiserfs many years ago, when Reiser was the first and only journalled filesystem. After that switch I have never

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Den 28.12.2017 01:51, skrev Steve Litt: > The one downfall of my method is if you absolutely, positively need > atomic backups: database files, for instance. You'd need to stop work > on the computer being backed up. In the case of my Daily Driver > Desktop, which contains 3,874,727 files, the

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Quoting Harald Arnesen (har...@skogtun.org): > Den 27.12.2017 19:34, skrev taii...@gmx.com: > > > Please remember that all RAID should have ECC RAM and when it comes to > > XFS it is MANDATORY to avoid massive data corruption. > > And a UPS. To summarise the summary of the summary, concerning

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:20:58 -0800 Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com): > > > As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat > > available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs. > > > > But soe are still under development, ZFS is

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 at 21:59:27 +0100 Harald Arnesen wrote: > Den 27.12.2017 19:34, skrev taii...@gmx.com: > >> Please remember that all RAID should have ECC RAM and when it comes to >> XFS it is MANDATORY to avoid massive data corruption. > > And a UPS. And an

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Please remember that all RAID should have ECC RAM and when it comes to XFS it is MANDATORY to avoid massive data corruption. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Quoting Harald Arnesen (har...@skogtun.org): > Den 27.12.2017 02:20, skrev Rick Moen: > > > btrfs is still scarily beta after rather a lot of years of development. > > Its prospects have dimmed further now that Red Hat have dropped it from > > their roadmap. > > That's your opinion. Nobody

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org): > IMHO Canonical is playing with fire with their (obviously wrong) > interpretation of the querelle, since Oracle has never ever been a > fair player... My recollection is that the stakeholders whose copyright would be infringed by an unauthorised

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Den 27.12.2017 02:20, skrev Rick Moen: > btrfs is still scarily beta after rather a lot of years of development. > Its prospects have dimmed further now that Red Hat have dropped it from > their roadmap. That's your opinion. -- Hilsen Harald ___ Dng

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 09:50:07PM -0800, Josef Grosch wrote: > On 12/26/17 6:22 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > >> Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com): > >> > [ DELETED ] > > > > I'll have about half a gig of RAM. Does this rule

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 01:42:56AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: [cut] > > You can legally, if I understand correctly, build ZFS in to a Linux > Kernel yourself, but you cannot (due to license restriction), do so and > provide it for others to use "as is", everyone whom want to use it in a >

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Hi, On 27/12/17 16:50, Josef Grosch wrote: > A good place to start is ZFS On Linux (http://zfsonlinux.org/) This project > is being run by the bright boys and girls at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, > our tax dollars at work. Yes, it is covered by a GPLv2-incompatible > licence[1] (CDDL),

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On 12/26/17 6:22 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: >> Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com): >> [ DELETED ] > > I'll have about half a gig of RAM. Does this rule out ZFS or just > make it moderately slower? I'm not going to be running

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com): [RAID1:] > It's not backup in any normally robust sense of the word. It does > provide a bit of backup against one potential threat -- minor > localized hard drive failures. Which is properly called rendundancy, in contrast to backup. (You

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com): > > > As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat > > available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs. > > > > But soe are still under development, ZFS is pparently under a >

Re: [DNG] Request file system reviews and recomendations.

Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com): > As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat > available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs. > > But soe are still under development, ZFS is pparently under a > prolematic license, and I don't know about XFS. > > I've onece heard