Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-06 Thread Stewart C. Russell via talk
On 2017-09-06 10:22 AM, Steve Petrie, P.Eng. via talk wrote: > > Rignt on about ext2/3/4. After much research, my design for the linux > disk drive partitioning for the desktop PC uses a blend of all three: > ext2, ext3, ext4. There's really no advantage in using anything *but* ext4 out of

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-06 Thread Steve Petrie, P.Eng. via talk
Greetings To GTALUG, - Original Message - From: "Anthony de Boer via talk" <talk@gtalug.org> To: "Alvin Starr via talk" <talk@gtalug.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what? Alvin Starr via tal

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-05 Thread Christopher Browne via talk
On 5 September 2017 at 18:33, Anthony de Boer via talk wrote: > (Mind you, a few Reiserfs systems a late co-worker set up _did_ get > repaved proactively after one or two shat themselves. But that's the > only FS that I've seen being actively bad.) > > I should add that the most

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-05 Thread Mike via talk
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Anthony de Boer via talk wrote: > > > (Mind you, a few Reiserfs systems a late co-worker set up _did_ get > repaved proactively after one or two shat themselves. But that's the > only FS that I've seen being actively bad.) > You got me there.

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-05 Thread Anthony de Boer via talk
Alvin Starr via talk wrote: > On 09/05/2017 09:42 AM, Christopher Browne via talk wrote: > > ... > > They were fairly keen not to respond to *anything* because we had JFS > > (that they chose to include, but not support). That seemed really > > weaselly to me at the time. It would be one thing

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-05 Thread Dhaval Giani via talk
Hi Alvin > > That is not even close to a real characterization of the conversation. > The point has been that losing a major distribution, and RH is a major > distribution, just takes away from the momentum that a project may have. > Take a look at Xen and its uptake outside Citrix once RH moved

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-05 Thread Alvin Starr via talk
On 09/05/2017 09:42 AM, Christopher Browne via talk wrote: On 4 September 2017 at 20:03, Scott Sullivan via talk wrote: On 03/09/17 02:12 PM, William Park via talk wrote: On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 05:52:12PM +, Dhaval Giani wrote: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 1:41 PM William

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-05 Thread Christopher Browne via talk
On 4 September 2017 at 20:03, Scott Sullivan via talk wrote: > On 03/09/17 02:12 PM, William Park via talk wrote: >> >> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 05:52:12PM +, Dhaval Giani wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 1:41 PM William Park via talk >>> wrote:

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-04 Thread Stewart C. Russell via talk
On 2017-09-04 08:30 AM, ac via talk wrote: > > hehehe, yeah... the quoted example was so not a rant.. Hmm, maybe it's a sign that communications around Linux kernel development are utterly broken if the long screed I linked to doesn't even merit “rant” status. Had Reiser really wished to have his

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-04 Thread Russell via talk
On September 4, 2017 12:19:06 PM EDT, Dhaval Giani via talk wrote: >On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:49 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk > wrote: >> | From: Dhaval Giani via talk >> >> | Redhat was never a major contributor to btrfs. The folks who are

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-04 Thread Dhaval Giani via talk
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:49 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk wrote: > | From: Dhaval Giani via talk > > | Redhat was never a major contributor to btrfs. The folks who are on btrfs > | like it and will continue fund its development. We might see a btrfs v2 > |

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-04 Thread D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk
| From: Dhaval Giani via talk | Redhat was never a major contributor to btrfs. The folks who are on btrfs | like it and will continue fund its development. We might see a btrfs v2 | similar to ext3 and ext4. But only time will tell. Please let's not equate | red hat with

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-04 Thread Dhaval Giani via talk
> > > I was not trying to equate RH with BTRFS development but pointing out that > when a major distribution provider decides to drop a project that they once > included its a big hit for the project. > And as I mentioned, Red Hat was never a major contributor to btrfs. AFAIK, the maintainer of

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-04 Thread ac via talk
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 07:09:08 -0500 o1bigtenor via talk wrote: > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Stewart C. Russell via talk > > wrote: > > On 2017-09-03 09:56 PM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote: > > > True enough but the project could have been picked up by

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-04 Thread o1bigtenor via talk
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Stewart C. Russell via talk wrote: > On 2017-09-03 09:56 PM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote: > > > > True enough but the project could have been picked up by others. > > Something as complex as a FS needs corporate support, and no company > wishes to

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Lennart Sorensen via talk
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 09:02:24PM -0400, Alvin Starr via talk wrote: > True enough. > But with Redhat voting with their feet it will make the uptake of BTRFS much > slower if at all. I am not sure btrfs is quite ready for production use yet, so not sure why redhat ever supported doing so in the

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Lennart Sorensen via talk
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 10:18:19PM -0400, Stewart C. Russell via talk wrote: > Something as complex as a FS needs corporate support, and no company > wishes to be associated with a convicted murderer. Reiser was also > famously difficult to get along with (a sample of one of his rants is > here:

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Alvin Starr via talk
On 09/03/2017 10:18 PM, Stewart C. Russell via talk wrote: On 2017-09-03 09:56 PM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote: True enough but the project could have been picked up by others. Something as complex as a FS needs corporate support, and no company wishes to be associated with a convicted

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Stewart C. Russell via talk
On 2017-09-03 09:56 PM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote: > > True enough but the project could have been picked up by others. Something as complex as a FS needs corporate support, and no company wishes to be associated with a convicted murderer. Reiser was also famously difficult to get along with (a

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Alvin Starr via talk
On 09/03/2017 09:40 PM, Stewart C. Russell via talk wrote: On 2017-09-03 09:02 PM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote: Remember Reiserfs? … Much more reliable then the equivalent ext systems but non-technology related issues killed it. Very much technology related, it seems to me. It's hard to manage

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Alvin Starr via talk
On 09/03/2017 09:20 PM, Dhaval Giani wrote: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 9:02 PM Alvin Starr via talk > wrote: On 09/03/2017 02:53 PM, Dhaval Giani via talk wrote: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 2:13 PM William Park via talk

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Stewart C. Russell via talk
On 2017-09-03 09:02 PM, Alvin Starr via talk wrote: > > Remember Reiserfs? … Much more reliable then the equivalent ext > systems but non-technology related issues killed it. Very much technology related, it seems to me. It's hard to manage patch requests when your lead architect is serving 15

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Robert Brockway via talk
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017, Alvin Starr via talk wrote: True enough. But with Redhat voting with their feet it will make the uptake of BTRFS much slower if at all. Remember Reiserfs? I was a great filesystem at least for my use. Much more reliable then the equivalent ext systems but non-technology

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Dhaval Giani via talk
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 9:02 PM Alvin Starr via talk wrote: > On 09/03/2017 02:53 PM, Dhaval Giani via talk wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 2:13 PM William Park via talk > wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 05:52:12PM +, Dhaval Giani wrote: >> > On Sun,

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Alvin Starr via talk
On 09/03/2017 02:53 PM, Dhaval Giani via talk wrote: On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 2:13 PM William Park via talk > wrote: On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 05:52:12PM +, Dhaval Giani wrote: > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 1:41 PM William Park via talk

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread Dhaval Giani via talk
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 2:13 PM William Park via talk wrote: > On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 05:52:12PM +, Dhaval Giani wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 1:41 PM William Park via talk > > wrote: > > > Now, I read (it's an old news, though) that BTRFS is being

Re: [GTALUG] From BTRFS to what?

2017-09-03 Thread William Park via talk
On Sun, Sep 03, 2017 at 05:52:12PM +, Dhaval Giani wrote: > On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 1:41 PM William Park via talk > wrote: > > Now, I read (it's an old news, though) that BTRFS is being "deprecated" > > by Redhat, and presumably others will follow. > > Where have you read