Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Jun 2011 21:20 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Fedora Core "When it comes to adopting the newest technologies, Fedora is always at the front among the major Linux distributions. Well, Fedora might very well do it again by adopting a new file system for its next release. According to proposals for Fedora 16, Btrfs will be the default filesystem used in that release. The proposal has been approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee. In Fedora 16, the switch from EXT4 to Btrfs will be a 'simple switch' - it means that major Btrfs features such as RAID and LVM capabilities will not be forced onto users."
Order by: Score:
Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Fri 10th Jun 2011 21:28 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Long time coming. Very good to finally be here.

Reply Score: 4

fsck.btrfs?
by panzi on Fri 10th Jun 2011 22:56 UTC
panzi
Member since:
2006-01-22

So there is finally a fsck.btrfs that can fix errors? Or are the fedora people really so insane and they make this filesystem the default without a error fixing fsck.btrfs? The moment we have a good fsck.btrfs I'll switch to btrfs.

Reply Score: 2

RE: fsck.btrfs?
by phoenix on Sat 11th Jun 2011 06:47 UTC in reply to "fsck.btrfs?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Nope, still no working fsck, or really, any debugging/recovery tools.

Yep, Fedora is still going ahead despite the lack of an fsck tool.

There are lots of "in progress" features for btrfs; seems a little premature to make it the default. An option, sure, but certainly not the default.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: fsck.btrfs?
by Hey_neken on Sat 11th Jun 2011 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE: fsck.btrfs?"
Hey_neken Member since:
2005-09-08
RE: fsck.btrfs?
by orestes on Sun 12th Jun 2011 17:51 UTC in reply to "fsck.btrfs?"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Might be better off without a fsck. Look at BTRFS's spiritual ancestor ReiserFS if you need a reason why

Reply Score: 2

v Oracle
by pfgbsd on Sat 11th Jun 2011 02:11 UTC
Comment by vikramsharma
by vikramsharma on Sun 12th Jun 2011 17:58 UTC
vikramsharma
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not flaming but is btrfs mature (stable enough) to be shipped as a default filesystem. I am not trying to start a filesystem war.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by vikramsharma
by orestes on Sun 12th Jun 2011 20:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by vikramsharma"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

It's been available for testing on live systems in Fedora since at least F10, so yeah they can be reasonably sure that it won't blow up. Well as sure as any Fedora release that is, they do like to dance on the bleeding edge at times. I know I myself have been running it for a year or so now with no real hiccups I didn't cause for myself.

Not sure if the performance is up to par in all areas though. I recall benchmarks showing the FS being a bit on the sluggish side for database type stuff when compared to EXT4 and other common FS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by vikramsharma
by WereCatf on Sun 12th Jun 2011 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by vikramsharma"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Not sure if the performance is up to par in all areas though. I recall benchmarks showing the FS being a bit on the sluggish side for database type stuff when compared to EXT4 and other common FS.


I have no idea exactly as to why, but I am getting really poor performance under BTRFS. I've tried with -o compress and without, single-disk and multi-disk configurations etc. yet the problem persists. Luckily though I don't really need high performance, but someone who does should first test BTRFS out and see if it is fast enough for their needs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by vikramsharma
by static666 on Tue 14th Jun 2011 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by vikramsharma"
static666 Member since:
2006-06-09

You shouldn't optimise much before even making your product feature complete, or should you?

Seeing version numbers like 0.19, disk format changes, and no clear roadmap makes me think this is raw.

Edited 2011-06-14 07:44 UTC

Reply Score: 1