Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ext4 Advances As Interim Step To Btrfs

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the butter-is-better dept.

Data Storage 510

Heise.de's Kernel Log has a look at the ext4 filesystem as Linus Torvalds has integrated a large collection of patches for it into the kernel main branch. "This signals that with the next kernel version 2.6.28, the successor to ext3 will finally leave behind its 'hot' development phase." The article notes that ext4 developer Theodore Ts'o (tytso) is in favor of ultimately moving Linux to a modern, "next-generation" file system. His preferred choice is btrfs, and Heise notes an email Ts'o sent to the Linux Kernel Mailing List a week back positioning ext4 as a bridge to btrfs.

cancel ×

510 comments

BTRFS? REALLY? (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437223)

Couldn't they come up with a better name than "BuTteR FaSe?" I know I can't be the only one who read it like that. Call it anything but that.

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437291)

No I did not. Thanks to you, now whenever I am eating or drinking at the computer, everything will taste like land-o-lakes butter faces now. Bleh!

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437381)

Butter Fase probably intended as Butter Face.

Sounds like "But Her Face" as in: She has a great body, but her face...

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (5, Insightful)

initialE (758110) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437471)

Why not? It's a good analogy for FOSS after all. Great software, robust and all, but her face...

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (5, Funny)

spazdor (902907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437565)

Good, strong file-bearing hips!

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (5, Funny)

hampton (209113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437513)

You're right. BTRFS is really silly. I recommend that the shortened form be ButtFS.

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (1, Redundant)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437525)

I think it reads more like "Bit Rot" filesystem, perfect for 20 year old EPROM chips.

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437537)

Personally, I like "BuTt RiFfS" better.

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (5, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437561)

"Couldn't they come up with a better name than "BuTteR FaSe?" I know I can't be the only one who read it like that. Call it anything but that."

I read it as:

BeTteR FileSystem

I guess we'll have to part was :P

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437663)

Yeah. You are.

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (1)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437883)

It could also be read as BeTteR File System.

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (1)

msormune (808119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437885)

I read it as "BitterFS" :)

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437901)

So, cue the jokes.
How is this filesystem? Like Btr.

"ButterFS"--they're afraid to claim it is "BetterFS"?

That would mean we'd still have to wait for bstFS.

I guess if it's going to stay "butterFS", there ought to a special loopback driver so that you can put the butter on top of something else: brdFS.

Re:BTRFS? REALLY? (4, Funny)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437963)

I read it as BeaterFS and wondered if it was too soon for ReiserFS jokes.

Yes but... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437225)

...does it run linux?

GNAA! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437227)

first!

gnaa (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437249)

Only niggers and jews use Linux.

Re:gnaa (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437273)

As a Jewish Nigger, I say Huzza!

Re:gnaa (-1, Redundant)

sloanster (213766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437521)

In Korea, only old people use ext3 with linux

Re:gnaa (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437823)

what about islamic aboriginals?

BTRFS? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437261)

So it incorporates compression by vowel ommission? Brllnt!

Re:BTRFS? (1)

mqduck (232646) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437685)

They also omitted the double T. So you should have said "brlnt!"

Why not ZFS? (5, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437263)

Unless ZFS has patent issues, why not just work on having ZFS as Linux's standard FS, after ext3?

ZFS offers a lot of capabilities, from no need to worry about a LVM layer, to snapshotting, to excellent error detection, even encryption and compression hooks.

Re:Why not ZFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437307)

Unless i'm mistaken, ZFS is patented by its creators over at Sun

Re:Why not ZFS? (3, Informative)

Ivlis (1234144) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437879)

Parts of ZFS are patented, but the license allows running it in userspace using FUSE.

I'm confused: if we ask people why not run ZFS using FUSE, they reply because it's slow (I'm assuming it's possible to load ZFS at boot time using an initrd). And if we ask people which is better monolithic or microkernel, they reply microkernel. But ZFS using FUSE would be like a microkernel driver, so which is it?

Re:Why not ZFS? (1)

erikdalen (99500) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437949)

For starters most microkernels can boot from any filesystem even if the driver is in userspace.

Re:Why not ZFS? (3, Informative)

Xaria (630117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437969)

No, it wouldn't. A microkernel loads modules into the kernel space. You're talking about running in user space. So when an application makes a system call, the kernel has to translate it to the FUSE layer into user space. So there's an extra layer consuming time. On top of that, kernel space isn't generally swapped out, but user space can be. Obviously it should never happen, but wouldn't it suck if your disk driver was swapped out?

See the diagram at the bottom of this page: http://fuse.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

Also, ZFS (like ReiserFS) handles its metadata differently from ext3, so you have to translate the differences between the virtual file system and ZFS. This is why writes are significantly slower. Reads are not so bad. The NFS penalty would be huge. See http://www.linux.com/feature/138452 [linux.com]

Re:Why not ZFS? (5, Informative)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437323)

I am not aware of the differences, but from Theodore Ts'o [kerneltrap.org] :

people who really like reiser4 might want to take a look at btrfs; it has a number of the same design ideas that reiser3/4 had --- except (a) the filesystem format has support for some advanced features that are designed to leapfrog ZFS, (b) the maintainer is not a crazy man and works well with other LKML developers (free hint: if your code needs to be reviewed to get in, and reviewers are scarce; don't insult and abuse the volunteer reviewers as Hans did --- Not a good plan!).

Re:Why not ZFS? (5, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437527)

(b) the maintainer is not a crazy man and works well with other LKML developers

Also important, he might be more focused due to not being in prison for first degree murder

Re:Why not ZFS? (5, Funny)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437975)

Yep, BeaTeR FS is a kinder, gentler alternative to Reiser FS.

Re:Why not ZFS? (5, Interesting)

GrievousMistake (880829) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437829)

Huh. One of the interesting things things about Reiser4 from an end-user perspective was Hans Reisers plans for file metadata. From what I can find about btrfs, it currently doesn't even support normal extended attributes. There was also talk about making it easy for developers to extend the filesystem with plugins that could add e.g. compression schemes.
I can't really recognize anything from Hans Reiser's ramblings in the btrfs documentation that isn't standard file system improvements already seen in e.g. ZFS. does anyone have any specific examples of the ZFS-leapfrogging features referred to?

Re:Why not ZFS? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437929)

Huh. One of the interesting things things about Reiser4 from an end-user perspective was Hans Reisers plans for file metadata.

No, the most interesting feature of ReiserFS is this one [wikipedia.org] (look to the far right).

--
ReiserFS: It puts the "stab" in "/etc/fstab".

Re:Why not ZFS? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437347)

The ZFS developers specifically wanted the open sourced code to be under a GPL incompatible license, hence it has been released under CDDL (there was a interview with the Sun open source rep, can someone provide info/links about this). So ZFS cannot be part of the kernel, but there is a FUSE port of ZFS and according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Linux Sun is investigating a Linux port, so there may be something good coming

Re:Why not ZFS? (4, Informative)

mritunjai (518932) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437493)

The ZFS developers specifically wanted the open sourced code to be under a GPL incompatible license, hence it has been released under CDDL (there was a interview with the Sun open source rep, can someone provide info/links about this). So ZFS cannot be part of the kernel, but there is a FUSE port of ZFS and according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Linux [wikipedia.org] Sun is investigating a Linux port, so there may be something good coming

Rather, GPL is incompatible with anything else that can't be re-licensed as GPL, and that includes GPL v2 and v3, which can't even be mixed among themselves. May first we clear that mess, right ?

ZFS is present in both Mac OSX and FreeBSD, thank you! They have no license issues whatsoever.

Re:Why not ZFS? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437811)

that includes GPL v2 and v3, which can't even be mixed among themselves.

[citation needed] My memory of the GPL compatibility matrix doesn't support that, but it may be true for GPLv2-only rather than the ordinary GPLv2-or-any-later-version (which does cover the Linux kernel).

That said, I thought Sun was trying to GPLv3 ZFS? It's certainly a lovely filesystem, though I guess they're fighting with NetApp over patents on it.

Re:Why not ZFS? (2, Insightful)

setagllib (753300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437515)

A FUSE ZFS guarantees it will never be the "default" filesystem anyway. BTRFS has a good shot at being your / in a couple of years.

Re:Why not ZFS? (1)

Michael Hunt (585391) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437765)

The ZFS developers specifically wanted the open sourced code to be under a GPL incompatible license, hence it has been released under CDDL

No. The ZFS developers' management wanted the code to be under a license which served their purposes. The fact that CDDL is GPL-incompatible is, largely, GPL's fault. Don't blame the Sun guys for releasing free code simply because everything must be GPL in your world.

Hypocrite.

Re:Why not ZFS? (1)

calidoscope (312571) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437359)

IIRC, it is that ZFS was released with a license that is not compatible with GPL v2 and thus cannot be part of the Linux Kernel. Will be interesting to see how btfs stacks up with ZFS.

Re:Why not ZFS? (4, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437375)

ZFS offers a lot of capabilities, from no need to worry about a LVM layer, to snapshotting, to excellent error detection, even encryption and compression hooks.

...and that's it's biggest problem. ZFS duplicates a lot of functionality that belongs outside of a filesystem. All of the above can already be done using any Linux filesystem, so why keep around a second copy of all that code that implements those features for just a single filesystem?

ReiserFS was (is) in a similar situation, where it also duplicates a lot of functionality that doesn't belong in the filesystem. Not only does this make it harder to maintain, but it makes a lot of features filesystem specific that shouldn't be.

Re:Why not ZFS? (5, Informative)

Wonko (15033) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437473)

ZFS duplicates a lot of functionality that belongs outside of a filesystem. All of the above can already be done using any Linux filesystem, so why keep around a second copy of all that code that implements those features for just a single filesystem?

It wouldn't be possible to duplicate RAID-Z with LVM. Other features of ZFS are very handy, but RAID-Z is by far my favorite. Same storage density as RAID 5 but without the horrible write performance. RAID-Z uses copy-on-write to avoid RAID 5's required read for every non-cached write.

Being able to create filesystems just as easily as creating directories is quite handy as well, though. IIRC, the filesystem sizes in ZFS are controlled by a quota style system. That is much simpler than shrinking an LV (if your filesystem supports shrinking), then adding a new LV, and then creating a filesystem. I don't know about you, but I am always a bit nervous when I have to resize an LV.

You're both right. (5, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437741)

ZFS duplicates a lot of functionality that belongs outside of a filesystem.

Very true.

It wouldn't be possible to duplicate RAID-Z with LVM.

Also true.

And the features which could be duplicated, couldn't be done nearly as well without a little more knowledge of the filesystem.

The real problem here is that we're finding out that generic block devices aren't enough to do everything we want to do outside the filesystem itself. Or, if they are, it's incredibly clumsy. Trivial example: If I want a copy-on-write snapshot, I have to set aside (ahead of time) some fixed amount of space that it can expand into. If I guess high, I waste space. If I guess low, I have to either expand it (somehow, if that's even possible) or lose my snapshot.

A filesystem which natively implemented COW could also trivially implement snapshots which take up exactly as much space as there are differences between the increments. But because of the way the Linux VFS is structured, this kind of functionality would have to be in a single filesystem, and would be duplicated across all filesystems. Best case, it'd be like ext3's JBD, as a kind of shared library.

A humble proposal: We need another layer, between the block layer and the filesystem layer -- call it an extent layer -- which is simply concerned with allocating some amount of space, and (perhaps) assigning it a unique ID. Filesystems could sit above this layer and implement whatever crazy optimizations or semantics they want -- linear vs btree vs whatever for directories, POSIX vs SQL, whatever.

The extent layer itself would only be concerned with allocating extents of some requested size, and actually storing the data. But this would be enough information to effectively handle mirroring, striping, snapshotting, copy-on-write, etc.

It wouldn't be universal -- I've said nothing about the on-disk format, and, indeed, some filesystems exist on Linux solely for that purpose -- vfat, ntfs, udf, etc. Those filesystems could be done pretty much exactly the way they're done now. After all, the existence of a block layer in no way implies that every filesystem must be tied to a block device (see proc, sys, fuse, etc.)

But I think it would work very well for filesystems which did choose to implement it. I think it would provide the best of ZFS and LVM.

I haven't actually been seriously following filesystem development for years, so maybe this is already done. Or maybe it's a bad idea. If not, hopefully some kernel developers are reading this.

ZFS's "LVM" is not like Linux's LVM. (1)

jafo (11982) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437791)

The volume and snapshotting functionality in ZFS is quite different from that in the Linux kernel.

When you have the LVM and RAID inside the file-system, you can easily do things like do a RAID rebuild of *ONLY* the data the file-system is using. So if you have a 5TB file-system with 100MB of space in use, you can do a RAID rebuild in a few seconds instead of several hours.

Ditto for the snapshots. Linux's LVM implements snapshots, but you have to allocate storage to the snapshots specifically, where in ZFS you can use free space inside the file-system volume for snapshotting.

For example, one ZFS system I have currently has 229 snapshots on it, and I don't have to worry about any of them running out of space unless the whole file-system runs out.

So, saying that these are features that should be implemented outside of the file-system is easy to say, but loses a lot of the functionality you gain if they are all closely tied together.

Sean

Re:Why not ZFS? (4, Informative)

volsung (378) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437401)

I don't know about the patents, but the current major obstacle is the license. ZFS, as part of the OpenSolaris kernel, is available under the CDDL. The CDDL is incompatible with the GPL, ruling out ZFS inclusion directly in the Linux kernel. Sun has hinted that they could dual license the Solaris kernel under CDDL and GPL, but that hasn't happened yet. Small parts of the ZFS filesystem code have been GPLed so they could be added to grub to support booting ZFS root filesystems.

There is a userspace port of the ZFS code and utilities which avoids the license problem by using FUSE to separate the filesystem code into a separate process: ZFS-FUSE [blogspot.com] .

If Sun were to ever dual-license ZFS, the ZFS-FUSE codebase would be a good place to start for porting the code to direct kernel inclusion. (Note: Sun, via their subsidiary, Cluster File Systems, now employes the author of ZFS-FUSE to use his port as an optional backend for the Lustre file system.)

Re:Why not ZFS? (3, Informative)

42forty-two42 (532340) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437475)

Sun has some patents on ZFS; the CDDL grants a license to these patents if you're deriving from the original ZFS source, but then you can't link it to linux.

FWIW, I doubt ZFS-FUSE would be a good place to start - FUSE is totally different from Linux's actual vfs layer, after all.

Re:Why not ZFS? (1)

k33l0r (808028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437739)

ZFS has licensing issues. Sun has licensed it under the CDDL, which is incompatible with the GPL. If Sun doesn't change the license, our best hope will be to get ZFS running on FUSE, like NTFS-3G.

Re:Why not ZFS? (1)

scott_karana (841914) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437907)

Linux is GPL, and ZFS is CDDL. As such, you can't merge ZFS into the Linux kernel. Sun is apparently considering dual-licensing ZFS, but until that happens, we'll have to use half-assed solutions like running ZFS in userspace.

What I'd like (4, Interesting)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437283)

I would like transparent, administrator controlled, versioning. Modified a word document and saved it in place? root can go back and get the old version ( and, alternatively, the user can. root could disable this functionality ).

The pieces are in place, it's doable, just someone needs to program it.

Re:What I'd like (4, Interesting)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437355)

So, you want a Versioning file system [wikipedia.org] ? Just make sure you never let that run on /var.

OSS is like capitalism: If you see a need, then make it and distribute it.

Re:What I'd like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437743)

yeah aside from all the cash that capitalism usally brings ofc.

Re:What I'd like (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437779)

Good point about /var. But the important thing is, user data is recoverable if necessary.

And I would write it, except I suck at coding. :(

Re:What I'd like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437403)

You can do your own if you need it, by either using a version control system for your files, or doing snapshot every X h/m/s.

Re:What I'd like (1)

XMode (252740) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437425)

Oh god yes.. +1 for this.

User: Oh, I've just accidentally overwritten that hyper important document we had laying around in some random directory.
Me: Dont worry, its on backup tape. I'll get the old copy for you.
*20 mins of finding the right tape and restoring it*
User: That's not the one. We made a whole bunch of changes to it this morning and they aren't there anymore.
Me: *hair turns gray and falls out*

Re:What I'd like (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437479)

Wouldn't the world be so, so, so much nicer if users understood that the actual importance of a document is reflected in how carefully they stored it, not how angry they get when you can't get it back?

Re:What I'd like (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437585)

Did you just undo your own modding?

Re:What I'd like (4, Interesting)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437441)

That leads to space-bloat.

What I'd like are files with expiration dates. When I make up some twiddly chart or download some funny video, I keep it because I'll probably want it tomorrow or next week, but then I tend to forget to delete it later. It would be really cool if creating a user data file prompted you with a simple dialog specifying how long you want it. Common options like 1 Week, 1 Month, 6 Months, 2 Years, Forever would do most of the time, and an option to choose a custom date would cover the rest. When a file expired, it would be placed in some kind of psudo-Trash Bin that could be reviewed and emptied when you want more space.

I'd also love something tag-based instead of hierarchy-based. For example, I store photos by Year > Month > Event, but sometimes I want to make another category for photos of a specific person. This means I either make duplicates or have to dig around to find things. If I could tag them with dates (that should actually be auto-generated from the EXIF), event, place, and people I could then just browse for files with a particular tag.

Come to think of it, these ideas are both somewhat akin to how a human brain stores stuff.

Re:What I'd like (3, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437505)

It sounds useful, but I think it would turn out to be about as annoying as UAC. Better to keep your files organized and prune occasionally.

Re:What I'd like (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437689)

You're contorting what you want your FS to be with what you want your user interface to be.

Most of what you ask for could be done automatically with fast indexing search and automatically created snapshots/versioning that reclaims space as needed.

Re:What I'd like (1)

eric2hill (33085) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437693)

Tagging and time are two *very* underused metaphors in today's computer programs. Ever tried to tag an email with both a project and subproject? It doesn't happen. Gmail sort of allows this, but won't show you all the tags for a specific conversation in the main display, just that it's tagged with the most recent tag.

I'd love to have an application (or OS) that brought in and stored data (email, documents, whatever) in a better system than just a flat tree.

Re:What I'd like (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437759)

That is an interesting feature, and useful especially for tagging log files which have to expire for policy reasons. However, there is so much potential for abuse here that it may not be worth having.

A disgruntled employee can tag all files on a Web server to expire at the end of the month, then have a manual script they run weekly to retag them so they exist until the end of the next month. Then, if they get fired, the files get purged, and the admin can blame the filesystem for trashing everything while snickering.

Another issue could be the clock. A hacker could just skew the clock forward on a box a year, forcing destruction of all the objects tagged with an expiration date.

If it has to exist, it should just be a piece of metadata as opposed to an active destruction object.

Re:What I'd like (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437787)

That seems overly difficult to maintain.

Just treat the hard drive as a gigantic cache. When you run out of space, automatically delete files which haven't been so much as read in six months.

To keep it sane, keep an explicit break between what you're using as cache, and what is to be kept forever.

I do agree on tag-based, though I'd take it a step further and do search-based. Come to think of it, Spotlight (among others) already does this.

Re:What I'd like (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437447)

wayback [sourceforge.net] , copyfs [n0x.org] , and ext3cow [ext3cow.com] are all fairly stable versioning filesystems for linux. I'm not sure if they let you stop non-root users from getting old versions, but I don't see why you'd want people to have to ask an admin to get old versions of their files?

Re:What I'd like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437607)

3 words:

overly

zealous

admins :P

what's a "next generation" file system? (2, Interesting)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437507)

Something like ZFS immediately comes to mind... but is there some generally accepted definition of what makes a file system "next generation"? TFA doesn't say, and I hate to diminish anyone's efforts here, but the new features in ext4 (according to wikipedia) aren't much to write home about: higher precision time stamps, larger volumes, larger directories, faster fscking. These may be worthy accomplishments but they are incremental improvements, not anything new. Or did I miss something?

Re:What I'd like (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437531)

So, something like HAMMER [kerneltrap.org] , then?

A HAMMER filesystem can be mounted with an as-of date to access a snapshot of the system. Snapshots do not have to be explicitly taken but are instead based on the retention policy you specify for any given HAMMER filesystem. It is also possible to access individual files or directories (and their contents) using an as-of extension on the file name.

Released and stable in DragonFlyBSD 2.0, and obviously BSD licensed.

Re:What I'd like (1)

darkjedi521 (744526) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437605)

If you want a versioning file system, go use VMS for a while. They've been doing it since at least the early '90s. Not sure if ADVFS has that feature or not, never got a chance to use Tru64.

Re:What I'd like (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437737)

This exists in both NTFS (Windows Server 2003 and 2008 have the Previous Versions... feature, but it needs to be explicitly enabled), and on NetApp servers. The NetApp server snapshots are lifesavers. Users can just pull out an old version of a file out of the .snapshot directory (well, .snapshot/hourly.0 or what time they want) and not have to ask IT for a restore.

I'd like to see Linux have this, as well as MacOS (before they move to ZFS) without requiring the use of Time Machine, but it does take up a good amount of space to store the snapshots.

Re:What I'd like (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437769)

This is very, very tricky to get right.

Consider that POSIX provides no transactional guarantee other than sync and fsync.

How does the filesystem know when to create a new version? Should every byte ever written to the file be construed as a new version? If so, how does the admin figure out which precise version, out of the literally billions that would be created, is the right one?

And how do you reasonably prune that wasted space?

No, what you really want is version control software. Users too. At the very least, it ensures that each commit was deliberate, and represents a valid state.

Re:What I'd like (1)

steveha (103154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437825)

I want it too. When I used to run Windows 98 with Norton Utilities, I had this ("Norton Protected Recycle Bin") and it was slick. See my 6-year-old comment:

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=39457&cid=4213113 [slashdot.org]

To do this properly, it should be in the file system. (The undelete tool and the expire-old-data tool can and should be in user space, but the data protection features should be in the file system.)

steveha

Re:What I'd like (1)

BenBoy (615230) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437887)

Yeah, we could call it, I dunno, "time machine" or something.

fuck3r (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437339)

Availab7e to 'You see, even

Obligatory (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437341)

Nice, but does it murder your wife?

Re:Obligatory (1)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437397)

No, that's one of the listed features, actually!

        * Extent based file storage (2^64 max file size)
        * Space efficient packing of small files
        * Space efficient indexed directories
        * Dynamic inode allocation
        * Won't kill your family
        * Writable snapshots
        * Subvolumes (separate internal filesystem roots)
        * Object level mirroring and striping
        * Checksums on data and metadata (multiple algorithms available)
        * Integrated multiple device support, with several raid algorithms
        * Online filesystem check
        * Very fast offline filesystem check
        * Efficient incremental backup and FS mirroring
        * Online filesystem defragmentation

No (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437541)

buttered only

WHATS WRONG WITH RIESERFS? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437353)

This is what it would be like, if the majority of people were athiests.
ATHIEST KID: Mom, I'm going to go fuck a hooker.
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, son.
ATHIEST KID: Afterwards, I'm going to go smoke pot with my friends, since it's "not addictive."
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, come home soon!

The athiest kid leaves the room. The father comes home from work several minutes later.

ATHIEST DAD: Hey!
ATHIEST MOM: Hi, honey! I'm pregnant again. I guess I'll just get another abortion, since "fetuses don't count as human life."
ATHIEST DAD: Okay, get as many abortions as you want!
ATHIEST MOM: Oh, and don't go in the bedroom.
ATHIEST DAD: Why not?
ATHIEST MOM: There are two gay men fucking eachother in there.
ATHIEST DAD: Why are they here?
ATHIEST MOM: I wanted to watch them do it for awhile. They just aren't finished yet.
ATHIEST DAD: Okay, that's fine with me!

Suddenly, their neighbor runs into the house.

ATHIEST NEIGHBOR: Come quick, there's a Christian outside!
ATHIEST MOM: We'll be right there!

The athiest couple quickly put on a pair of black robes and hoods. They then exit the house, and run into the street, where a Christian is nailed to a large, wooden X. He is being burned alive. A crowd of athiests stand around him, all wearing black robes and hoods.

RANDOM ATHIEST: Damn you, Christian! We hate you! We claim to be tolerant of all religions. But we really hate your's! That's because we athiests are hypocritical like that! Die, Christian!

THE END

Scary, isn't it?

Re:WHATS WRONG WITH RIESERFS? (0, Redundant)

buswolley (591500) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437413)

Interestingly, I've never heard of an Athiest.

Re:WHATS WRONG WITH RIESERFS? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437641)

It's someone who practices Atheism [wikipedia.org] , eg Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Barak Obama.

Re:WHATS WRONG WITH RIESERFS? (0, Offtopic)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437745)

I know this is just flame bait but incase anyone reads it. Hilter was a christian but he didn't attend church world conquering is busy work i guess. Stalin Was raised to be a priest, hated became athiest, then later became a born again devoted catholic. Obama is obviously a christian even if his parents don't practice.

Re:WHATS WRONG WITH RIESERFS? (0, Offtopic)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437723)

It's someone who is athier than everyone else within the reference frame. Given that most people aren't very athy at all it's not really difficult to be the athiest for moderately sized reference frames.

Re:WHATS WRONG WITH RIESERFS? (0, Offtopic)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437971)

If there were an atheist authority, I would totally report you to it.

Re:WHATS WRONG WITH RIESERFS? (0, Offtopic)

daVinci1980 (73174) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437709)

You were modded offtopic and I will be too, but I feel I have to respond.

So if atheists ran things we'd legalize legitimate behaviors between consenting adults and would stop pretending that religious morality has a place in government?

Except for the disgusting lynching at the end, I fail to see what's wrong with the rest of your post.

Re:WHATS WRONG WITH RIESERFS? (0, Offtopic)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437863)

Well, it was another copy/paste troll. And I found quite a lot more wrong with it than the lynching -- which was downright comical. Black robes and hoods?!

Way up at the beginning, "ATHEIST KID" is probably meant to be a teenager. I can see where some people might have a problem with that -- especially a parent. If nothing else, there's STDs, and there's the working conditions of the hooker.

Marijuana is almost certainly not as bad as it's made out to be, and I would say the impact of outlawing it is worse than the drug itself. But from what my parents tell me of their own experience (so to speak), it absolutely has a negative effect on memory. You're going to tell me that atheists, who don't believe (or don't know) that they're going anywhere after they die, are going to risk the health of their one and only brain for a high?

Some would, I'm sure. Some Christians would (and do) as well. But I doubt there's a correlation, except in extreme cases -- like Rastafarians, who consider it a religious experience.

And, well, abortions are expensive, potentially dangerous, and time consuming. Even if you know nothing about atheists -- and hey, there's no reason an atheist can't be pro-life -- why would anyone choose a $500 abortion over a $1 condom?

Even if you assume atheists are inherently amoral (NOT true), why would you also assume they're complete morons?

I can't believe... (5, Funny)

arrenlex (994824) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437361)

Butter FS? Are you kidding me?

Here is your first official list of jokes. Please contribute.

1. You're still running ext4? I can't believe it's not ButterFS!
2. But will it run on toast?
3. Will fsck be renamed to butterknife?
4. If your system overheats will your filesystem melt?
5. If you use ButterFS too much, will it turn into FAT?
6. If you leave ButterFS on your volume too long, will your hard drive start to reek?
7. Will the next version of ButterFS be called GoatButterFS, just like the next version of Leopard is Snow Leopard?
8. "Tough" notebooks will never have their hard drives formatted with ButterFS, because if you dropped them, they would always land hard drive down.
9. When you submit your dead ButterFS hard drive to a data recovery centre, will they have an intern lick it to get the data off instead of putting it under a read head?

These are getting kind of desperate -- your turn now.

Honestly, what is it with FOSS and crappy names? (looking at you, gimp)

Re:I can't believe... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437437)

Honestly, what is it with FOSS and crappy names? (looking at you, gimp)

All the good ones are trademarked. And it's The Gimp, to you, mister!

Re:I can't believe... (3, Funny)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437443)

When your hard drive fails and you hear those awful noises, you can say it's churning butter.

Re:I can't believe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437489)

I think it started with the recursive acronym GNU. That set the stage for the nerdy animal acronym based naming schemes and their variations that are used throughout FOSS.

Re:I can't believe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437637)

I really don't see why they chose "Butter FS", when it could just have easily been "Better FS". A bit snoody, but also a whole lot less ridiculous.

Re:I can't believe... (1)

Ivlis (1234144) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437651)

Butters, what the hell are you doing?

Re:I can't believe... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437721)

These are getting kind of desperate -- your turn now.

Yeah, you're spreading yourself a bit thin.

  • I hear some of the features in btrfs have been refined from ext3cow.
  • I touch'd a file on a btrfs disk, and now it's sticky!
  • I hear the standard block size of btrfs is 8 oz.
  • How can I make a business case for btrfs? I'm all for introducing new tech, but my boss only cares about how it will affect our margarins.
  • Will btrfs keep my servers from grinding? I'm a bit worried that if they churn too much, my files will separate!
  • And most importantly, In an emergency, can I use btrfs for a smoother fsck?

Re:I can't believe... (2, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437725)

ButterCupFS - Just when you thought it had everything built up, it will then turn you down and mess things around.

you said for yourself that this was getting desperate

Re:I can't believe... (1)

GFree678 (1363845) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437783)

Honestly, what is it with FOSS and crappy names? (looking at you, gimp)

Programmers don't know/give a damn about marketing. Remember, they generally create something for themselves, so the name really doesn't matter to them. For better or worse.

Re:I can't believe... (1)

garphik (996984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437853)

Somehow I don't know why (maybe because of the current nomenclature trend), but this doesn't seem funny (or a joke) to me. Those things actually make sense, goodness ...

Butters' FS! (3, Funny)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437367)

Great for playing "Hello Kitty! Adventures"

Re:Butters' FS! (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437701)

I hear the project has got a new lead developer.. Professor Chaos.

Whoa! (5, Funny)

aevans (933829) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437439)

A Linux article on Slashdot!?

Re:Whoa! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437599)

You're right.. the terrorists must have won ;)

B-tree based Filesystem (1)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437529)

I saw that and couldn't help but think, are they trying to make a filesystem based on the B-tree concept?

Re:B-tree based Filesystem (3, Funny)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437927)

That's exactly what they're doing. The plan is to limit every directory to exactly two files or subdirectories that will be kept in alphabetical order. That way, you can find any file on your drive in log(n) time. Future updates are planned for people who have more than two songs by the same artist.

Btrfs = Bit torrent file system? (1)

phreakv6 (760152) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437579)

that outta make a good marketing strategy

tytso (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437841)

rgtfo..

If you want a blazingly fast file system.... (2, Informative)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437917)

Then look no farther then NSS [wikipedia.org] ( Novell Storage Services ).

It is Open Source, you get the full source if you download SLES.

It has more of the desired features [wikipedia.org] then anything else on the block right now.

This should be the default file system for Linux. It has years of very heavy duty R&D behind it, it is pretty much completely de-bugged and ready to rock.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...