Btrfs

[prince]

*correction*  Maybe next time?


***Do not test unless:*******

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_source_repositories

[retired1af]

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.

[bigpaws]

Why on earth would you propose that FS when it not
even stable?

Bigpaws

[prince]

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."

[retired1af]

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.

[prince]

Agreed, retired1Af and bigpaws, it's not ready for prime-time, I agree.

[GrannyGeek]

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?
--GrannyGeek

[retired1af]

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.

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page

[prince]

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.

[nightflier]

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.

[retired1af]

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.

[arkaland]

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.

[bigpaws]

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.

Bigpaws

[stretchedthin]

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.

[GrannyGeek]

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.
--GrannyGeek