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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
> |
| 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
>
>
> 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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo