Re: btrfsck integration with userlevel API for fsck
On 30/03/2012, at 2:22 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:08 AM, member graysky wrote: >> Are there plans to integrate btrfsck with the userlevel API for fsck? > > There isn't even a stable, working, fixing btrfsck yet :) Yes, there is. Chris merged the btrfsck changes into the btrfs-progs master in git a few days ago and we shipped it with the Oracle Linux UEK2 update as well. Cheers, Avi --- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Principal Program Manager | +61 (412) 229 687 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Problems with compiling btrfs
Hi, On 22/03/2013, at 8:11 AM, Joseph Moore wrote: > [root@ol6 btrfs-progs]# uname -a > Linux ol6.localdomain 2.6.39-400.17.2.el6uek.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Mar 13 > 12:31:05 PDT 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux This is the currently shipping Oracle Linux 6 UEK and as such, doesn't support a newer btrfs-progs. If you want to run a newer btrfs, you should install the 3.8 kernel from our playground channel on public-yum.oracle.com and then you can compile a newer btrfs-progs to match. I've also asked the playground build team to build a newer btrfs-progs RPM for the playground channel, but I'm not sure what the timeframes on that would be. -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Principal Program Manager | +61 (412) 229 687 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Experiences: Why BTRFS had to yield for ZFS
Hi, On 17/09/2012, at 7:55 PM, Casper Bnag wrote: > We're using the latest available kernel for our Oracle Unbreakable > Linux 6.3 from Aug 28. We have no other option, since the Oracle database > software needs to run on a certified distro. Oracle Database is not certified to run on either btrfs or ZFS on Linux, so if certification is an issue, you can't use either filesystem. Out of interest, have you done a performance benchmark with ASM using ASMlib on the same platform? -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Principal Program Manager | +61 (412) 229 687 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Experiences: Why BTRFS had to yield for ZFS
Hi, On 17/09/2012, at 8:47 PM, Casper Bnag wrote: > month, that just makes me wonder why Oracle didn't use these latest bits. We used the most stable release of btrfs that was available when the development of the UEK was done. Keep in mind that while it's versioned at 2.6.39, it's actually 3.0.16 under the hood. It's just that some userspace doesn't like having a kernel version that doesn't start with "2.6" >> Out of interest, have you done a performance benchmark with ASM using ASMlib >> on the same platform? > > Sorry, no. Our experience with ASM is limited, we came to the conclusion once > that we like being able to handle the files in a plain mountable file-system. Perhaps, but ASM would provide all the functionality you require, including snapshots and rollback, at the highest possible performance. Certainly a lot higher than both ZFS and btrfs. And it's fully certified and supported by Oracle. As an alternative, why not consider using Oracle VM on the machine and creating database VMs instead? You can then use the snapshot capability of Oracle VM while still running supported and certified filesystems inside each guest. (We should also probably take this discussion off-list, as it has drifted away from btrfs proper). Feel free to reply to me directly if you want. -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Principal Program Manager | +61 (412) 229 687 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Experiences: Why BTRFS had to yield for ZFS
Hi, On 19/09/2012, at 2:48 AM, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 17/09/2012 8:05 PM, Avi Miller wrote: >> Oracle Database is not certified to run on either btrfs or ZFS on Linux, so >> if certification is an issue, you can't use either filesystem. Out of >> interest, have you done a performance benchmark with ASM using ASMlib on the >> same platform? > > I thought that Oracle considered BTRFS to be production ready. It > surprises me that running an Oracle database on BTRFS is not a supported > configuration. The Oracle Linux team considers btrfs production-ready and we support it for production purposes for customers. However, we have nothing to do with Database and their certification process, and the Database (and other) product teams have not certified it for use with their products yet. This is also why product certification lags: we have nothing to do with individual product certification processes on various operating systems/platforms. So, while I'm aware that the database team is planning to certify btrfs "at some point", I suspect with Oracle OpenWorld coming up in a few weeks time, they have other things on their plate right now. :) -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Principal Program Manager | +61 (412) 229 687 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Experiences: Why BTRFS had to yield for ZFS
Hi, On 09/10/2012, at 1:38 AM, Casper Bang wrote: > If you do have a suspicion or insight on the matter (perhaps work for Oracle, > or > know OUK?), of course we'd love a followup offline this list. I've sent an email to Casper to follow this up offline. Thanks, Avi -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Principal Program Manager | +61 (412) 229 687 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: OK to take hourly snapshots, then cull older ones?
On 15/10/2013, at 4:05 PM, David Madden wrote: > I haven't looked at the wiki carefully enough to understand this, but > could one reasonably back up the snapshots of one BTRFS filesystem to > an independent BTRFS filesystem, in a more efficient way than just > dump/restore or cpio or something? Yes, it's called btrfs send/receive. Take a look at the incremental backup page for usage: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Incremental_Backup -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Principal Program Manager | +61 (412) 229 687 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 01/10] Btrfs-progs: move open_file_or_dir() to utils.c
Hey Chris, On 25/01/2013, at 9:36 AM, Chris Mason wrote: > I'd say that if SuSE or oracle depend on them we keep them. Otherwise, > I'm fine with removing them or just making the 3 line bash script. You can take this as an official response from Oracle: we don't need/want the old tools. :) All of our documentation uses the unified binary. Thanks, Avi -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Principal Program Manager | +61 (412) 229 687 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Testing BTRFS
On 11 Mar 2014, at 11:39 am, Lists wrote: > Is there a "recommended way" to do this? Is it anywhere as easy as ZFSonLinux > yum install? Oracle Linux 6 with the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel Release 2 or Release 3 has production-ready btrfs support. You can even convert your existing CentOS6 boxes across to Oracle Linux 6 in-place without reinstalling: http://linux.oracle.com/switch/centos/ Oracle also now provides all errata, including security and bug fixes for free at http://public-yum.oracle.com and our kernel source code can be found at https://oss.oracle.com/git/ Cheers, Avi -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Product Management Director | +61 (3) 8616 3496 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Testing BTRFS
Hey, On 12 Mar 2014, at 6:08 am, Eric Sandeen wrote: > If we're plugging distros... I can also tell you that you can install > upcoming RHEL7 on btrfs if you like, and it has a very up-to-date > btrfs codebase. Ditto for OL7, for obvious reasons. :) > Indeed, testing 3.8.13-26.2.1.el6uek.x86_64 (which is, I believe, > the kernel which Avi referred to) via xfstests, I saw > failures on btrfs/009 and btrfs/022; then the box deadlocked > on btrfs/024. I rebooted & resumed, then deadlocked on btrfs/030. > Rebooted and resumed again, then panicked on btrfs/035. At that > point I stopped. We have a bunch of btrfs fixes queued for UEK3-QU2 which is in alpha build internally at the moment. We do run the full xfstests against our UEK3 releases and are working with Liu Bo to backport fixes from mainline which should resolve some (hopefully all) of the failing xfstests. It’s also worth ensuring that you’re upgrading the userspace btrfs-progs package that ships with the updated UEK3 kernels, if applicable. > Ben, the best advice I have for you is to test *your* workload > on btrfs with whatever qualification tests you have, and see how > things fare. If you want to know the current state of btrfs, > test the upstream code as best you can; if you hope to deploy > on a distribution with a longer support window, test on that > distribution. Agreed. > But I agree with Josef that for now, the fixes and changes are > still flying fast & furious, and except in limited use cases, > btrfs is not yet ready for general commercial deployment. Obviously, we disagree (somewhat) here. We’re happy with the status of btrfs functionality in UEK3 to provide limited production support, but this is just from the Oracle Linux team. The other product teams within Oracle (RDBMS, Java, middleware, etc) obviously have to do their own validation and testing and are responsible for their own support. As above, I agree with Eric that you should test your own workloads and requirements and make your own judgement call. Cheers, Avi -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Product Management Director | +61 (3) 8616 3496 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Testing BTRFS
Hi, On 14 Mar 2014, at 5:10 am, Lists wrote: > Is there any issue with BTRFS and 32 bit O/S like with ZFS? We provide some btrfs support with the 32-bit UEK Release 2 on OL6, but we strongly recommend only using the UEK Release 3 which is 64-bit only. -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Product Management Director | +61 (3) 8616 3496 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: RHEL/CentOS or Debian for stable deployment
Hi, On 28 Mar 2014, at 11:29 pm, Johan Kröckel wrote: > Which source for the kernel binaries would you use, to get stable > btrfs support together with mentioned service? Have you considered Oracle Linux? We are continually backporting btrfs fixes and enhancements to our Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel releases. On Oracle Linux 6, you would run the UEK Release 3, which is based on 3.8 mainline with upstream fixes. We also provide all security and bug fix errata for free via http://public-yum.oracle.com, so you don’t need to buy support to run Oracle Linux at keep up-to-date. Cheers, Avi -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Product Management Director | +61 (3) 8616 3496 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: RHEL/CentOS or Debian for stable deployment
Hi, On 29 Mar 2014, at 10:38 am, Lists wrote: > On 03/28/2014 02:42 PM, Avi Miller wrote: >> Have you considered Oracle Linux? We are continually backporting btrfs fixes >> and enhancements to our Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel releases. On Oracle >> Linux 6, you would run the UEK Release 3, which is based on 3.8 mainline >> with upstream fixes. We also provide all security and bug fix errata for >> free viahttp://public-yum.oracle.com, so you don’t need to buy support to >> run Oracle Linux at keep up-to-date. > > Can't remember asking if btrfs is supported on 32 bit kernels? We support btrfs on our 32-bit UEK Release 2 (labelled 2.6.39 but it’s actually 3.0 under the hood. Yay userspace issues). However, our latest UEK Release 3 (3.8 both labelled and under-the-hood) is only built for 64-bit and is highly recommended for production btrfs usage. We are no longer back porting mainline fixes into UEK Release 2 because the code has just moved on too far for it to be feasible. So, while there is a 32-bit kernel with btrfs support, our recommendation is to use the 64-bit kernel on x86_64 hardware for the best experience. -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Product Management Director | +61 (3) 8616 3496 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Hard restart required
On 4 Apr 2014, at 11:26 am, Lists wrote: > UUID should work, right? Why else have a UUID if not? UUID should work fine on OL6. Can you confirm that you have the UEK3 (3.8.18) kernel running? If you’ve installed from OL6U5 media, it should be enabled by default, but older OL6 ISOs only had UEK2 on the media and the UEK3 yum channel would need to be manually enabled. Cheers, Avi -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Product Management Director | +61 (3) 8616 3496 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Hard restart required
Hi, On 5 Apr 2014, at 3:26 am, Lists wrote: > On 04/03/2014 05:41 PM, Avi Miller wrote: >> UUID should work fine on OL6. Can you confirm that you have the UEK3 >> (3.8.18) kernel running? If you’ve installed from OL6U5 media, it should be >> enabled by default, but older OL6 ISOs only had UEK2 on the media and the >> UEK3 yum channel would need to be manually enabled. > > As suggested earlier on this list, I started with a fresh, vanilla CentOS 6 > install and used the centos2ol.sh script to switch to using OL before doing a > yum update/upgrade and install of BTRFS. Here's the relevant info after the > switchover. Any particular reason why you didn’t just start with Oracle Linux 6? The installation media is available for download from the official Oracle Software Delivery Cloud at http://edelivery.oracle.com/linux or if you can’t be bothered with the registration requirement, from one of the mirrors listed at https://wikis.oracle.com/display/oraclelinux/Downloading+Oracle+Linux There is no good reason to start with CentOS. > [root@oracle ~]# uname -a > Linux oracle.schoolpathways.com 2.6.32-431.11.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Mar 25 > 08:15:39 PDT 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux This kernel is very, very, very old in btrfs terms. In fact, this is the RHCK or Red Hat Compatible Kernel that ships with RHEL6/C6 and isn’t one of the newer Oracle UEK releases at all. > [ol6_UEKR3_latest] > name=Latest Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel for Oracle Linux $releasever > ($basearch) > baseurl=http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/UEKR3/latest/$basearch/ > gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-oracle > gpgcheck=1 > enabled=0 Enable this repository and do a yum update to get the latest UEK Release 3, i.e. the 3.8.13 kernel. Cheers, Avi -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Product Management Director | +61 (3) 8616 3496 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Hard restart required
Hey, On 5 Apr 2014, at 9:50 am, Lists wrote: > Oracle Linux 6 with the Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel Release 2 or Release 3 > has production-ready btrfs support. You can even convert your existing > CentOS6 boxes across to Oracle Linux 6 in-place without reinstalling: Yeah, that’s fine and supported. Though, it just switches the existing box across without upgrading to the new kernel. We retain the scripts so that users can switch across without reinstalling. Additional steps are required to install the UEK, though, as below: >>> is had no effect, even after running a yum clean all to ensure that the >>> caches were reset. I'll re-install my test station with a direct download >>> of OL, since the testing now underway is apparently invalid. No need for this, just install kernel-uek manually: # yum install kernel-uek It has a different name from the default kernel, so both can be installed at the same time. Because this is a switched box, a yum upgrade won’t automatically pull in the UEK because there isn’t an existing one to upgrade. Sorry for the confusion! -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Product Management Director | +61 (3) 8616 3496 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Hard restart required
On 5 Apr 2014, at 12:48 pm, Avi Miller wrote: > It has a different name from the default kernel, so both can be installed at > the same time. Because this is a switched box, a yum upgrade won’t > automatically pull in the UEK because there isn’t an existing one to upgrade. It’s been a while since I switched a CentOS box, but you might find installing oraclelinux-release will pull in a bunch of the updated packages. I can’t recall if the switch script does this automatically or not, though. -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Avi Miller | Product Management Director | +61 (3) 8616 3496 Oracle Linux and Virtualization 417 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004 Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
