×

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!

Google Switching To EXT4 Filesystem

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the make-money-with-open-source dept.

Google 348

An anonymous reader writes "Google is in the process of upgrading their existing EXT2 filesystem to the new and improved EXT4 filesystem. Google has benchmarked three different filesystems — XFS, EXT4 and JFS. In their benchmarking, EXT4 and XFS performed equally well. However, in view of the easier upgrade path from EXT2 to EXT4, Google has decided to go ahead with EXT4."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

348 comments

Well (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770484)

I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a fuck.

Not A Nerd? (2, Insightful)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770588)

News for nerds. Stuff that matters.

Not that I RTFA or anything, but I find it interesting that XFS and EXT4 both appear to be equally impressive with benchmarks, and it's implied they are both better than JFS. You must not be a nerd.

Re:Not A Nerd? (3, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770846)

I too found it interesting, because it basically alleviates any need for me to worry about "upgrading" to ext4. My current Linux systemse use an ext3 /boot partition and everything else xfs. Given some of the press ext4 has gotten lately, I just trust xfs more, and knowing that I'm not really giving up any performance is a huge plus.

Truthfully though, where the heck are the meta-data based filesystems that we were promised? I've love to be able to, on a filesystem level, instantly pull up a folder view of all videos - or all images. Or all images of my dog. Or all images outdoors. Or all images of my dog outdoors.

Basically, just the ability to organize via an arbitrary number of categorized tags.

Re:Not A Nerd? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771638)

Truthfully though, where the heck are the meta-data based filesystems that we were promised? I've love to be able to, on a filesystem level, instantly pull up a folder view of all videos - or all images. Or all images of my dog. Or all images outdoors. Or all images of my dog outdoors.

Basically, just the ability to organize via an arbitrary number of categorized tags.

I don't think that such a feature has anything to do with the underlying file system. That's something to be implemented at a higher level.

Re:Not A Nerd? (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770984)

As another home user I too find it illuminating which FS benchmarks best for Google's workload.

Re:Not A Nerd? (0, Offtopic)

Iron Condor (964856) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771406)

Said a Google spokesperson: "JFS performed really well, XFS was superb, but EXT4 was the killer!""

Re:Not A Nerd? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771526)

I believe you meant ReiserFS was the killer.

Give us a +-0 Counterbalance (2, Interesting)

itomato (91092) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771292)

When does black become white?
#CCCCCC or #888888

Is there overlap with Flamebait?

When does an otherwise 'troll' moderation-worthy comment lose out on status that could validate 19 responses, with 50% scoring +2?

Sometimes a troll is a troll, but sometimes its just a shadow.

Time for a backup? (5, Informative)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770502)

I guess now is as good as any to go through my Gmail and Google Docs and make local backups. I'm sure my info is safe, but I have been through these types of 'upgrades' at work before and every once in a while....well, let's just say backups are never a bad idea.

Re:Time for a backup? (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770526)

Not to worry. It's all in the cloud, right?

Re:Time for a backup? (4, Funny)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770658)

Uh huh, the mushroom cloud.

Re:Time for a backup? (5, Funny)

paradigm82 (959074) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770932)

It's probably nothing, probably. But I'm getting a small discrepancy in the file sizes...no, no, it's well within acceptable limits. Continue to stage 2.

Re:Time for a backup? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771314)

Wait a minute. I'm a manager, and I've been reading a lot of case studies and watching a lot of webcasts about The Cloud. Based on all of this glorious marketing literature, I, as a manager, have absolutely no reason to doubt the safety of any data put in The Cloud.

The case studies all use words like "secure", "MD5", "RSS feeds" and "encryption" to describe the security of The Cloud. I don't know about you, but that sounds damn secure to me! Some Clouds even use SSL and HTTP. That's rock solid in my book.

And don't forget that you have to use Web Services to access The Cloud. Nothing is more secure than SOA and Web Services, with the exception of perhaps SaaS. But I think that Cloud Services 2.0 will combine the tiers into an MVC-compliant stack that uses SaaS to increase the security and partitioning of the data.

My main concern isn't with the security of The Cloud, but rather with getting my Indian team to learn all about it so we can deploy some first-generation The Cloud applications and Web Services to provide the ultimate platform upon which we can layer our business intelligence and reporting, because there are still a few verticals that we need to leverage before we can move to The Cloud 2.0.

Re:Time for a backup? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770640)

Oh fuck off. It's not like Google is going to upgrade their entire multiply-redundant infrastructure all at once. And ext4 is a very conservative and stable FS. The "upgrade" process is to simply mount your old ext3 volume as ext4, and let new writes take advantage of ext4 features. If Google is actually still using ext2 rather than ext3, ext4 will be significantly *more* reliable. Not as good as XFS for preserving data integrity, but better than ext2.

Re:Time for a backup? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770832)

The "upgrade" process is to simply mount your old ext3 volume as ext4, and let new writes take advantage of ext4 features.

You say that like it's a good thing. one error, like an assumption in the maximum number of files or clusters causes a wrap round and it all goes tits up.

It's not like they haven't dropped the ball before: http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/12/28/gmail-disaster-reports-of-mass-email-deletions/ [techcrunch.com]

Do no evil, but be a bit incompetent sometimes.

Re:Time for a backup? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771584)

Data integrity (and replication) is managed in a layer over the fs, so the journaling could be an unneeded hit to the performance. Probably thats why they didnt upgraded to ext3 a long while ago.

Re:Time for a backup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770648)

Yes because google will do an in-place upgrade of terabytes of data without taking their own backups. Retard.

Re:Time for a backup? (1)

spydum (828400) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770698)

Actually, they could. It's not like you pay anything for it.

Re:Time for a backup? (2, Insightful)

BenLeeImp (1347831) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771062)

True, but they do make money off of your data. I'm pretty sure they will go to great lengths to protect their source of revenue.

Re:Time for a backup? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770660)

It sounds like EXT4 is fully compatible with 2 and 3, so even an EXT2 drive can be mounted as EXT4, which means the chances for failure are seriously reduced.

But I totally hear what you're saying. Whenever you upgrade Anything, nothing is SUPPOSED to go wrong.

However, It always does.

Re:Time for a backup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770886)

Free loaders don't get to choose.

Re:Time for a backup? (5, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770942)

I usually let the bit-gods decide what data I have that is important enough to save. Over the years the bit-gods have taught me that:

Music files: not important, Styx crossed the Styx to /dev/null in 2002
Essay written for sophomore year high school english: Important, I assume to haunt me in some future political race.
Porn collection: Like the subject matter within, it swells impressively, explodes, then enters a refractory period until it's ready to build up again.
C++ program that graphs the Mandelbrot set: Important. I like feeling like an explorer navigating the cardioid's canyons.
Photos of my children: Not important. If I need more baby photos, I can just have more babies.

Re:Time for a backup? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771574)

Music files: not important, Styx crossed the Styx to /dev/null in 2002

I wish I could mod you up for that line...

Re:Time for a backup? (2, Insightful)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771014)

"backups are never a bad idea."

Depends, for example you reduce the security of data with the number of backups you keep (you could encrypt them but that has it's own problems).

Re:Time for a backup? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771290)

Dude, it's Google!

They have like 50 backups of their own logos, all of them.

You'r bits are safe, trust me.

Re:Time for a backup? (1)

nemmi (33230) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771400)

No. No need to back it up. Google already has a backup. It is called the Dept. Of Justice (DOJ) . They are actually in the same building, but they just want to make sure the "terrorists" haven't made any "illegal searches" before you can have it back.

Slashdotted already ? (1)

ccandreva (409807) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770528)

Looks like Digitizor already melted.

Re:Slashdotted already ? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770618)

Phoronix has the story

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Nzg4MA

Use of commas. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770572)

Eats, shoots and leaves. Read it.

Re:Use of commas. (1, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770814)

Why do I put a comma before the and in a list?

I would say "I have a cat, a dog, and two goats."

But you would say "I have a cat, a dog and two goats." (Then you'd bugger the goats, but that's how you roll.)

The English language is so damned weird...but AC is right, illegal use of commas. That's a 15 karma penalty. 1st down.

Re:Use of commas. (2, Informative)

Darth Sdlavrot (1614139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771126)

Why do I put a comma before the and in a list?

I would say "I have a cat, a dog, and two goats."

But you would say "I have a cat, a dog and two goats."

The English language is so damned weird...but AC is right, illegal use of commas. That's a 15 karma penalty. 1st down.

I too add the comma in lists of discrete items -- not sure where I learned it.

If some items are connected or related in some way that's distinct from the other items in the list I'd omit the comma. Not a great example: "I have a cat, a daughter and a son, a car and a motorcycle, and a swimming pool."

I notice that the Brits (and Canucks, Aussies, etc., tend to always omit the comma.

Could be an Americanism?

(And I suspect you really write it, not "say" it.)

Digitzor link uesless (5, Informative)

autocracy (192714) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770592)

I managed to ease a pageview out of it. That said, the /. summary says all they say, and you're all better served by the source they point to, which is what SHOULD have been in the article summary instead of the Digitzor site.

See http://lists.openwall.net/linux-ext4/2010/01/04/8 [openwall.net]

Btrfs? (2, Interesting)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770616)

I guess they didn't consider btrfs ready enough for benchmarking yet.

Re:Btrfs? (5, Informative)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770838)

From kernel.org's BTRFS page [kernel.org]:

Btrfs is under heavy development, and is not suitable for any uses other than benchmarking and review. The Btrfs disk format is not yet finalized, but it will only be changed if a critical bug is found and no workarounds are possible.

It's ready for benchmarking, it's just not ready for widespread use yet. If Google was looking for a filesystem to make a switch to in the near future, BTRFS simply isn't an option quite yet.

It's really easy at this point to move from EXT2 to EXT4 (I believe you can simply remount the partition as the new filesystem, maybe change a flag or two, and away you go). It's basically free performance. If Google is convinced it's stable, there isn't much reason not to do this. It could act as an interim filesystem until something significantly better - such as BTRFS - gets to the point where it's dependable. The fact BTRFS was not mentioned here doesn't mean it's completely ruled out.

Re:Btrfs? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771280)

Ext3 is just a couple flags added to ext2. For ext4, if you want to take advantage of its features, you have to start from scratch. However, I don't think this is an issue for Google, as they have a ton of redundancy.

Re:Btrfs? (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771344)

It sounds like just mounting an ext2 partition at ext4 should give some performance increase, but it won't be able to use extents, which are apparently a big deal.

Re:Btrfs? (4, Informative)

StarHeart (27290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771442)

You don't have to start from scratch. You just have to enable the extents feature. It won't auto convert the old stuff, but any time something is changed it will be made into an extent.

Re:Btrfs? (2, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770954)

The chances of them using it would be pretty much nil. They are switching from ext2, and ext4's been "done" for over a year now. I'm sure they have a few benchmarks of btrfs, just not on as large of a scale as these tests were.

No ReiserFS? (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770626)

It's interesting that ReiserFS wasn't even an option here. I myself even ended up using Ext4 when I set up a new box not too long ago. It's a real shame that just because the creator of the filesystem committed a crime, people are drawn to treat the technology itself are somehow dishonored.

It's Not Hans (4, Interesting)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770752)

I too have abandoned using ReiserFS but it's not about the horrible crime Hans committed. It's about the fact I don't think the company that he owned (who developed ReiserFS) has a great future, so I foresee maintenance problems with that filesystem. Sure, somebody else can continue their work but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Re:It's Not Hans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770956)

I don't know if anyone else uses the term, but my friends and I call it MurderFS

Re:It's Not Hans (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771108)

So it's indirectly about the horrible crime Hans committed. Since it's because of that that his company has a poor future, and won't be maintaining Reiser for very long.

Re:It's Not Hans (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771278)

ReiserFS is in mainline, and is maintained by the kernel developers. Resier and Namesys all but abandoned it, which is one of many factors that kept the newer Reiser4 out of mainline, even though Reiser4 was superior to ReiserFS in many ways.

Re:It's Not Hans (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771512)

ReiserFS is in mainline, and is maintained by the kernel developers.

So is OS/2 HPFS. On the one hand that shows that ReiserFS will probably supported almost forever. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd be rolling it out for new deployments or applications unless you're in a very tight niche.

Re:No ReiserFS? (3, Insightful)

pdbaby (609052) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770756)

...or maybe the fact that he's no longer involved brings up questions about its future direction. I'm sure they took a look at reiserfs previously

Re:No ReiserFS? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770764)

...maybe they felt it wasn't cutting edge enough.

Re:No ReiserFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770844)

It's not that the Creator was convicted of a crime, per se.

All the Namesys people are working for other employers now, on other things.

Who's interested in maintaining or enhancing it? Nobody as far as I can tell.

Re:No ReiserFS? (1)

Icarium (1109647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770868)

I'd imagine contacting a prison for tech support could be a bit awkward.
(Yes, I know it's lame)

Re:No ReiserFS? (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771122)

The association is too close in this case because a murderer's name is part of the file system name. If the product had been named something else the association wouldn't be there. Might as well stock the shelves with Bernardo Bath Oil and Dahmer Doodads. How well do you think that would go in the eyes of the corporate world? So it's not because the creator of the filesystem committed a crime, it's because the product has an unsavoury name - those are two distinct and unrelated issues.

Re:No ReiserFS? (5, Funny)

jspenguin1 (883588) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771236)

They need to change the name... How about
  Object-oriented
  Journalled
  File
  System?

Re:No ReiserFS? (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771384)

// Came here for the Reiser reference //// Not leaving disappointed! ////// Oops, this aint Fark...

Google doesn't need journaling? (3, Interesting)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770634)

The main advantage of EXT3 over EXT2 is that, with journaling, if you ever need to fsck the data, it goes a LOT quicker. It's interesting to note that Google never felt it needed that functionality.

Additionally, I was under the impression that Google used massive numbers of commodity consumer-grade harddrives, as opposed to high-grade stuff which I presume is less likely to err. Couple this fact with the massive amount of data Google is working with and there has got to be a lot of filesystem errors, no?

Can anyone else with experience with big database stuff hint as to why Google would not need to fsck their data (often enough for EXT3 to be worthwhile)? Is it cheaper just to overwrite the data from some backup elsewhere at this scale? How do they know the backup is clean without fscking that?

Re:Google doesn't need journaling? (4, Informative)

spydum (828400) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770768)

Replicas stored across multiple servers -- if one is corrupted or unavailable requiring fsck, who cares? Ask the next server in line for the data.

Re:Google doesn't need journaling? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771272)

It's always rather curious to me when people re-state the last question in a post as a sentence when a simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

Re:Google doesn't need journaling? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771396)

It is always rather curious to me when people use the phrase "it's always rather curious to me" when a simple "I hate it when" would have sufficed.

Re:Google doesn't need journaling? (1)

42forty-two42 (532340) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770824)

First, google's servers each have their own battery [cnet.com], so it's unlikely that all the servers in a DC will go down at once. If only a few go down, their redundancy means that it's not a big deal - they can wait for the fsck. And moreover, even if an entire DC goes down (eg, due to cooling loss) they have the redundancy needed to deal with entire datacenter failures - with that kind of redundancy, fscking is only a minor inconvenience (plus with a cooling failure they might have time to sync and umount before poweroff...)

Re:Google doesn't need journaling? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770960)

I always felt that fscking the data taking data that is already on the disk (the journal) into account was weaker than fscking the data independently (no journal). Or at least that it would bring more possibilities of errors (e.g. errors in the journal itself). It may very well be an unjustified impression that I have but at least it seems logical at first glance; A simpler file system means less risk of bugs, etc.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1511104&cid=30770742 [slashdot.org]

Re:Google doesn't need journaling? (2, Informative)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771182)

If you lost power while the journal was being written and it was incomplete then the journal entry would just be discarded and your filesystem itself would be fine, it would just be missing the changes from the last operation before the crash.

Re:Google doesn't need journaling? (1)

philipmather (864521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771140)

From all the articles I've seen regarding the various Google product's modus operandi the "consumer grade" disks are used in only two cases, either...

1) To store the data closer to processing elements that needs it (BigTable? or MapReduce), in which case failure of a critical disk could be treaeted as a failed PE and the job re-queued on a different PE or set of PEs (i.e. non-latency sensitive work) ...or...

2) In massive redundancy (GFS) for systems where "redoing" part of the job either isn't practical, relevant or applicable. ...you can make a reasonable bet that any "output" data sets such as BI/MIS reports or "end product" data sets are then shipped off and made available to whatever audience needs it via something a little more conventional like a SAN. Single, whole "input" data-sets are probably treated the same either kept on something boring and normal like a SAN or re-scanned/built/trawled if a subsection is lost from a set that is formed from a composite.

Check out these...

http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/CommentView.aspx?guid=7D244266-E3AB-4636-985D-BEE5C0BFC485 [25hoursaday.com]
http://labs.google.com/papers/bigtable.html [google.com]

Re:Google doesn't need journaling? (2, Informative)

crazyvas (853396) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771460)

They use fast replication techniques to restore disk servers (chunkservers in GFS terminology) when they fail.

The failure could be because of a component failure, disk corruption, or even a simply killing of the process. The detection is done via checksumming (as opposed to fscking), which also takes care of detecting higher-level issues that fscking might miss.

Yes, it is much cheaper for them to overwrite data from another replica (3 replicas for all chunkservers is the default) using their fast re-replication techniques rather than trying to fsck.

Check this paper out (see pdf link at bottom of page) under "Section 5: Fault Tolerance and Diagnosis" for more info:
http://labs.google.com/papers/gfs.html [google.com]

As impressively as each other?! WTF?! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30770714)

From TFA:

In their benchmarking, EXT4 and XFS performed, as impressively as each other.

WTF kind of retarded sentence is that?! Did Rob Smith help you write that article?!

In their benchmarking of EXT4 and XFS, EACH performed as impressively as THE OTHER.

Re:As impressively as each other?! WTF?! (0)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770950)

A giant robot running through town you say? Well a monster of that size could only be defeated by an even equally big monster!

Re:As impressively as each other?! WTF?! (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771606)

I think you meant to say, "Well a monster that gigantic could only be defeated by an even equally gigantic monster!"

Re:As impressively as each other?! WTF?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771536)

In their benchmarking of EXT4 and XFS, EACH performed as impressively as THE OTHER.

Much better would be: Ext4 and XFS were similarly impressive in benchmark performance.

Still on ext2 on servers (3, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770742)

We are still using ext2 on servers. Now I have an argument; if Google is still using ext2 maybe we aren't so foolish. We might update some day but it is not yet a priority. With UPS and proper fail over and backup procedure in place, I can't remember when a jounaling file system would have helped us in any way. They seem great for desktops/laptops although.

Re:Still on ext2 on servers (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771204)

Seriously? Being able to recover you data faster, isn't a consideration? Or do you have a big SAN for all of the critical application data?

XFS performance highly variable (3, Interesting)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770898)

I've used XFS on a RAID1 setup with SATA drives, and found the performance of the delete operation extremely dependent on how the partition was formatted.

I saw times of up to 5 minutes to delete a Linux kernel source tree on a partition that was formatted XFS with the defaults. Have to use something like sunit=64, swidth=64, and even then it takes 5 seconds to rm -rf /usr/src/linux. I've heard that SAS drives wouldn't exhibit this slowness. Under Reiserfs on the same system, the delete took 1 second. Anyway, XFS is notorious for slow delete operations.

Re:XFS performance highly variable (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771414)

For a lot of modern corporate data storage situations, deletion isn't really important. My company uses an in-house write-once file system (no idea what it's based on), because by and large, the cost of storing old data is negligible next to the advantages of being able to view an older version of the dataset, completely remove fragmentation from the picture, etc. I suspect deletion operations are fairly uncommon at Google; in the rare cases it is necessary it is quite possible they just copy the data they want to keep to a new location, then flash the drive completely.

Re:XFS performance highly variable (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771612)

mounting with nobarrier will change those 5 minutes to 5 seconds, but don't turn off your computer during the delete then.

GFS (3, Insightful)

jonpublic (676412) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770926)

I thought google had their own file system named the google files system.

http://labs.google.com/papers/gfs.html [google.com]

Windows Driver (1)

pgn674 (995941) | more than 4 years ago | (#30770948)

Might this prompt someone at Google to make an installable file system driver for Windows for EXT4? Right now, there is none, because of differing inode sizes and some extra features over EXT2 that EXT4 demands I think.

Re:Windows Driver (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771186)

Why? NTFS is the least of your worries if you're stuck using Windows.

Re:Windows Driver (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771296)

I can't imagine why it would.

To the best of my knowledge, Google uses pretty much no Windows servers themselves(at least not for any of their public facing products, they almost certainly have some kicking around) and "a vast number of instances of custom in-house server applications" is among the least plausible environments for a Windows server deployment, so that is unlikely to change.

On the desktop side, Google has a bunch of stuff that runs on Windows; but it all communicates with Google's servers over various ordinary web protocols and stores local files with the OS provided filesystem. The benefits of EXT4 on Windows would have to be pretty damn compelling for them to start requiring a kernel driver install and a spare unformatted partition.

I suppose it is conceivable that some Google employee might decide to do it, for more or less inscrutable reasons; but it would have no connection at all to Google's broader operation or strategy.

I upgraded from ext3 to ext4 and (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30771118)

Do I get the front page of slashdot? No just a comment! How much is Google paying you for this publicity Mr. Malda?

Ubuntu 9.10? (4, Interesting)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771252)

Gee, I hope they're not using Ubuntu 9.10 by any chance: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/910 [ubuntu.com]

There have been some reports of data corruption with fresh (not upgraded) ext4 file systems using the Ubuntu 9.10 kernel when writing to large files (over 512MB). The issue is under investigation, and if confirmed will be resolved in a post-release update. Users who routinely manipulate large files may want to consider using ext3 file systems until this issue is resolved. (453579)

The damn bug is STILL not fixed apparently. Some people get the corruption, and some don't. Scares me enough to not even try using ext4 just yet, and I'm still surprised Canonical was stupid enough to have ext4 as the default filesystem in Karmic.

Then again, perhaps Google knows what they're doing.

Re:Ubuntu 9.10? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771578)

Then again, perhaps Google knows what they're doing.

Moreso than your average Slashdotter, I expect.

well, duh (1)

Dan Yocum (37773) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771488)

"In their benchmarking, EXT4 and XFS performed, as impressively as each other."

Welcome to 2001, subby. Glad you could make it this decade.

I completely understand them not jumping to XFS, though. I'd never want to convert exabytes of data from one FS to another.

Downtime (2, Interesting)

Joucifer (1718678) | more than 4 years ago | (#30771632)

Is this why Google was down for about 30 minutes today? Did anyone else even experience this or was it a local issue?
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...