Cooking up the Treats => New Package Requests => Topic started by: prince on May 25, 2010, 04:25:42 pm

Title: Btrfs
Post by: prince on May 25, 2010, 04:25:42 pm
*correction*  Maybe next time?

***Do not test unless:*******
Title: Re: Btrfs Download?
Post by: retired1af on May 25, 2010, 10:01:07 pm
Still under heavy development, and IMO, not ready for prime time. If someone wants to play with it, fine, but I'd prefer not even to have it as an option, especially for production machines.
Title: Re: Btrfs Download?
Post by: bigpaws on May 26, 2010, 05:28:02 am
Why on earth would you propose that FS when it not
even stable?

Title: Re: Btrfs Download?
Post by: prince on May 26, 2010, 01:15:36 pm
The Meego operating system (is a collaboration of Intel and Nokia) gave it a go, as their default operating system.  It's been available for the Linux Kernel since 2.6.31.  I do recall that in Unix it was 5 years before ZFS filesystem was officially approved as stable. Still, I feel safer with UFS2, being that there are recovery tools for it. Remember, Linus T., too, is rooting for it.  It would be interesting booting Vector on it.  For the mean time, though, I do think that this is a project for the "Testing Repository," not the official Repository. On my main machine no, on my test machine, why not?  This here is a quote from those Btrfs guys:

"Btrfs is a new copy on write filesystem for Linux...

Btrfs is under heavy development, but every effort is being made to keep the filesystem stable and fast. As of 2.6.31, we only plan to make forward compatible disk format changes, and many users have been experimenting with Btrfs on their systems with good results. Please email the Btrfs mailing list if you have any problems or questions while using Btrfs."
Title: Re: Btrfs Download?
Post by: retired1af on May 26, 2010, 01:22:42 pm
Until it's OUT of heavy development, I see no need to expend the resources to compile it into the new releases. Once it settles down, perhaps then. As I said, if you want to give it a whirl, knock yourself out. But to spend development time into wrapping it into a new version isn't worth it IMO. Not yet.
Title: Re: Btrfs Download?
Post by: prince on May 26, 2010, 01:58:36 pm
Agreed, retired1Af and bigpaws, it's not ready for prime-time, I agree.
Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: GrannyGeek on May 27, 2010, 06:53:06 pm
Can someone explain to me this fascination with file systems? I can see that having journaling file systems is important, but beyond that, what difference would it make to an average user?

It seems to me that both ext3 and reiserfs have worked fine for me. I haven't tried others because I don't see the point. I don't know what recovery tools are available and even if I did, I'd have no idea how to use them. Besides, with all important data backed up as well as the system, why would I, an average user, bother with recovery tools? Why wouldn't I just restore my backup?
Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: retired1af on May 27, 2010, 07:05:39 pm
Once it gets out of development, I expect btrfs will become the defacto standard for Linux. There are a lot of good things in store which will make it an extremely good file system.
Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: prince on May 30, 2010, 02:39:18 am
Hmmmh ....GrannyGeek an average user? Granny... is so modest.  Just the fact that he found Vector Linux makes him beyond average, I think.  That includes the rest of you Vector members, too. Back to file-systems, I would say that the best feature MS Windows ever had, for the novice, was the restore point. Unless, of-course, your restore point was corrupted ....  Well, the Btrfs will meet Windows on those terms. Btrfs will make Linux look at other high end Unix Systems straight in the eye. As a matter of fact, ZFS would blush if Btrfs parked up next to it. ...and it'll be ready to win a few Grand Prix races, too.
Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: nightflier on May 30, 2010, 05:38:13 am
I'm with Granny when it comes to recovery tools and backups. Speed and efficiency ranks very high on my list of priorities. I did find that XFS would squeeze more data onto a drive than EXT3, at least when using default settings.

For recovery, whenever I set up a Windows machine, I get the base system and all drivers set up, then turn off indexing and system restore. I move "My Documents" to a separate partition. When the machine is ready for service, I make a clone backup so I can restore it quickly without worrying about activation and hours worth of updates. On Linux boxes, I just back up the data.
Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: retired1af on May 30, 2010, 05:46:13 am
Yep. I've seen system restore bork more Windows installations than I care to think about. Especially when there's a virus involved.

If one is worried about data, then they should be doing backups on a regular basis. System images are good, too. Which reminds me, I really do need to pull the trigger on another external drive. ;D
Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: arkaland on June 03, 2010, 03:51:47 pm
Granny Geek,
I was very surprised at your "who cares" attitude re. file systems until I saw that you have NEVER tried JFS. I would seriously be willing to wager a bundle that hardly ANY of you veteran Vectorites have ever tried the jfs filesystem. Why do I say that? Because I deeply believe, from my own personal firsthand experience, that if you had, most (if not all) of you would still be using JFS as your filesystem OF CHOICE. Also, because you STILL do not offer JFS as a partitioning filesystem at installation time (unless the disk has been "pre-formatted" somehow).
Don't misunderstand me: I know that a "favorite" filesystem is largely a matter of opinion and of choice. But that being the case, why not OFFER that choice in a user-friendly fashion? I used to have Vector 5.8 at one time, and it was "OK" - but it could've been better if I had had the choice of filesystems that Slackware offers. I dropped Vector and switched to another Slackware derivative largely so that I COULD install using JFS, and guess what? I have never regretted it in the least. JFS is small, it's stable and mature, it's thoroughly tested, and - you can take my word for it - it's not only very efficient in every way I can think of, it's also the most trouble-free AND the easiest-to-use filesystem I've ever seen (the "man" files can actually be understood and followed by virtually anyone).
The reason for this post is very simple. I couldn't care less about BTRFS, Reiser-4, EXT-4, or any of the others, but I have always liked VectorLinux (I'm still using one of your kernels and several of your other packages). It almost makes me sick that I've never been able to use any of your "live" CD's in a useful manner because you persist in acting like JFS is of no importance at all. Please WAKE UP. The "jfsutils" package is small, including the filesystem in the kernel adds very little, but - even if JFS isn't that well publicized - the benefits are super (you'll never know until you've tried it). Please at least think about it - seriously.
Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: bigpaws on June 03, 2010, 05:59:55 pm
the benefits are super (you'll never know until you've tried it). Please at least think about it - seriously.

I would be happy to find out what the difference is. I look at fault tolerance, ACLs and noticable speed.

Please enlighten us about exactly JFS will bring to the table.

I did a little reading on JFS and have not found anything that would interest me in
switching. ACL's can be a pain as it is and JFS tosses in class.

Being that I deploy systems myself, your comments have sparked interest. There
has to significant advantages for a switch.

Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: stretchedthin on June 03, 2010, 06:09:11 pm
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think JFS is an option during the install of the VL6.0 standard graphical installer and the new Soho installer. 

Below are snapshots taken from install of vl standard 6.0 (gui installer) and the other from soho.

I'm not sure about vl-light but I'll check out the live-installer as it uses gparted an may offer it as well.

Edit: Ok, I checked out the vl-light live install and it looks like that too offers an option to install the jfs filesystem. Using the live installer.
arkaland, I'm on XFS right now, but next install I promise to give JFS a try.
Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: GrannyGeek on June 03, 2010, 07:39:42 pm
I have no problem with offering jfs as a choice at installation. In fact, I'm pretty sure it IS offered since VL6.

One reason I stick with ext3 is that it can be resized with tools I already have and trust, such as Partition Commander. Resizing is something I rarely do, but if I do need to resize, I don't want surprises.

You still haven't explained what jfs would offer ME. I've never had trouble with any file system I've ever used, whether for MSDOS or Windows or Linux. I certainly consider a journaling file system to be superior to a non-journaling system, and as far as Windows goes, NTFS is superior to FAT or FAT32. I don't know what "easy to use" means when it comes to file systems. I don't deal with the file system as such, just the files and ordinary operations such as copying, moving, and deleting. How would those be any easier with jfs as compared with ext2 or 3, reiserfs, FAT32, or NTFS?

So I'm still wondering what the "super benefits" are. I'm not being negative, I just want to know why you think jfs would be so beneficial to me.
Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: sledgehammer on June 03, 2010, 07:56:40 pm
I second GrannyGeek.

I have always used reiserfs.  Just because. Having never killed a wife, should I someday run into Hans Reiser, we will still have at least one thing in common to talk about.

What would be the benefit of switching to something other than reiserfs?  What would be the downsides?

Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: MikeCindi on June 03, 2010, 08:11:17 pm
The discussion of various file system's benefits over another have been discussed here before. I posted these articles then: and (here's another one just for fun:

I have the same thoughts as GG for why I use the FS that I use (which is mostly reiserFS although in VBox I use XFS). I personally don't use JFS or XFS on any partition that I would want to resize as it is not a quick or easy process...yet. As for the few partitions that I don't ever resize (mostly in VBox) I use XFS because it has the smallest footprint. JFS would seem from the articles I've referenced to have some advantages in resource use and speed over most of the other "commonly" used FS but has not yet gained the popularity that XFS has or the history and popularity that the ext series has. ReiserFS and reiser4 would seem to be dead-ends (no pun intended) due to the past legal/criminal issues with its developer (although I've not read up on the saga lately...okay I just looked this up as sledgehammer posted while I was typing:

Another point that I believe GG makes which IMO is probably the most crucial: what is the advantage for the average user of any FS over another? In most situations of a home desktop or laptop one will not be aware of FS benefits/shortcomings (at least not until there's a problem). Perhaps a moderate to high load server (whatever that really is) may see performance improvements with one FS vs. another.

Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: sledgehammer on June 03, 2010, 08:48:57 pm
ReiserFS and reiser4 would seem to be dead-ends (no pun intended) due to the past legal/criminal issues with its developer

Last I heard (6 months or a year ago), Hans was trying to get a computer installed in his San Francisco jail cell.

Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: arkaland on June 04, 2010, 09:19:22 am
I guess my blurb about the JFS filesysytem was a little too general in nature (I must admit, it almost reads like a commercial). I was speaking primarily from my own personal experiences. I myself have used ext3, Reiser3 and XFS - all of those BEFORE switching to JFS, so, believe it or not, I DID indeed mean that IMHO the jfs fs is better OVERALL. I will readily admit that if you expect a possible need to resize the partition at some future date, the JFS is not what you want to use. But to me, that's the one and ONLY disadvantage in picking JFS.
When I used ext3, I had no real problems to speak of, as long as no fsck or "tuning" of any kind were needed. For those of you who are TRULY "tech-savvy", ext3 is fine (though rather slow and very "picky" about some things). But for the "average" user, the "man" files are a bad joke (I used to get headaches trying to understand them). And - if e2fsprogs is so good - then why (apart from the new ext4) do they have so many darned "upgrades"? (You might ask that about XFS as well).
As you can surmise by now, I am no "geek" (no pun intended, Granny) - just a rather typical "intermediate" user (I switched from Bill Gates' crap in February of 2006). I did have some file corruption problems with both Reiser3 and XFS, and broken symlinks troubles with XFS which is what I used for Vector-5.8.  The manuals for Reiser & XFS are "bad news" compared to the clear, short, simple and UNDERSTANDABLE man files that come with jfsutils. I don't doubt that they're no real problem for "pro's", but please remember that the experts are a small minority of today's Linux users such as myself. Also, since switching to JFS in 2008 (almost 2 full years ago), I have gone through several power outages here in stormy Arkansas, several fsck's, I've formatted & used several flash (USB) drives with JFS, and I have NEVER yet experienced any filesystem slowdowns, corruption or problems of any kind - whatsoever.
As far as current JFS availability on Vector, quite frankly, I haven't tried a Vector release for several months now because the last time I did (with a then-current Live CD), I couldn't even mount my hard drive or flash drive for "repairs" due to the fact that they were JFS-formatted. As a result, I simply gave up on you for the time being (maybe you can now understand why I cared enough to write my first post). I guess when a guy's been "burned", he thinks twice before lighting ths same match a second time!
If you REALLY care about making & keeping Vector "user-friendly", then the jfs filesystem is simply as good as it gets. It's virtually identical to both Reiser and XFS in terms of space efficiency (compare that to ext3), it's smaller, simpler, bug-free (as far as I can see), fast, very reliable AND the "man" files are written for relative tech-dummies like me. What more can I say?
Title: Re: Btrfs
Post by: MikeCindi on June 04, 2010, 10:29:35 am
JFS is part of the VL6 series and I suspect (though I have not tried the new VL7 alpha yet) JFS will continue to be available in future VL releases. Since I too have never had a problem with >5 years of reiserFS use (since SuSE 9.x) and the past 2+ years of XFS and a few months of JFS (I only us ext3 on my ClearOS server install as that is the choice) I've not looked at the man pages for any of them that I recall so it has never played a role in my decision making. I live in Oklahoma and have also survived multiple power outages but even my NTFS partitions recovered without issue.
As for the live CDs in the VL line I couldn't give any input as I've not tried or tested them. If I need to do any "repairs" I use other OSes designed for that purpose.
Thus I don't think you will find any users here opposed to JFS being available but you may need more data that is objectively and clearly superior to the other options to convince a in change personal preferences (and speaking as a medical doctor even that doesn't work a lot of the time).