Beta
×

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!

Btrfs Could Be the Default File System In Ubuntu Meerkat

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the shake-things-up dept.

Ubuntu 269

An anonymous reader writes "The EXT family of file systems (ext2, ext3, ext4) have ruled many Linux distributions for a long time, and Ubuntu has been no exception. But things may no longer be the same for Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat. Canonical's Scott James Remnant said in a blog post that plans are on for doing work to have btrfs as an installation option, and that the possibility of making it the default file system in Ubuntu 10.10 has not been ruled out."

cancel ×

269 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... (4, Interesting)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213458)

Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers. I might try it on desktops/workstations. Not that I use Ubuntu at all. Btrfs is supported by kernel 2.6.32 on other distros as well if you care to configure it properly.

I remember failure stories with other latest and greatest filesystems lately and I will let others continue to test and identify bugs before I use it on servers/SAN with critical data.

From the btrfs wiki https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page [kernel.org] :


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.

Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... (1)

pwagland (472537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213646)

From the article:

[The decision to make btrfs default] would only made with the knowledge that production servers and desktops can be run on Lucid as a fully supported version of Ubuntu at the same time. I’d give it a 1-in-5 chance.

So it would appear that you are not the only one who would only run it on a server...

Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... (1)

pwagland (472537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213660)

From the article:

[The decision to make btrfs default] would only made with the knowledge that production servers and desktops can be run on Lucid as a fully supported version of Ubuntu at the same time. I’d give it a 1-in-5 chance.

So it would appear that you are not the only one who would only run it on a server...

Of course, that should be who would not run it on a server...

Re:Hmm... I am going to pass for now on servers... (4, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214410)

I've run filesystems that were considered ok-but-early-adopter on servers before. Early XFS releases, for example. It's perhaps not really comparable as SGI had already developed XFS v1 on their workstations and so most of the code was fairly heavily-tested before the Linux port of XFS v2. But there's another consideration - if you look at the way btrfs is described, most of the individual components look a lot simpler than are used in other next-gen filesystems. The difference isn't great between, say, a b-tree and a b+tree or a b*tree, and most filesystem coders are well beyond the stage of making errors on simple abstract data types (right?), but simple components assembled in complex ways are generally more trust-worthy than complex components assembled in simple ways.

In fact, going back to the early XFS days (when SGI released Red Hat installers and even a few releases before), I found XFS to be much more stable and much more reliable than reiserfs, even though reiserfs has been around longer and was considered mainstream.

please... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32213520)

wait until it is more stable than ext4 is right now. I picked ext4 when I installed 10.04 last week, and it caused data corruption on the first boot. Just saying.

Re:please... (3, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213592)

Btfrs already seems to be more stable than ext4: every PC I own with an ext4 partition has failed to boot at some point due to disk corruption, whereas the one with an Btfrs partition has worked fine for the few months since I configured it. I eventually turned on data journaling to try to stop ext4 corrupting disks and so far that's been safe but largely because it's eliminated all the supposed performance benefits of ext4.

Re:please... (3, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213702)

Are you certain that it's due to FS corruption? I've had ext4 fail to boot due to silly errors like the last write being one hour into the future (some kind of time zone confusion), but no corruption at all. I ask only because most people seem incapable of reading an error message and just doing the /sbin/fsck.ext4 /dev/sdaX that it explicitly calls for.

Re:please... (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213838)

Are you certain that it's due to FS corruption? I've had ext4 fail to boot due to silly errors like the last write being one hour into the future (some kind of time zone confusion), but no corruption at all.

I'm not 100% sure: it booted up and dumped me into a single-user console, so I assumed it was a corrupt filesystem rather than something really stupid like that... fsck and then reboot made the machine boot.

Re:please... (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214342)

Yes, that sounds very much like what occured to me as well. If it is, it's not so much corruption as a silly demand to have the user run fsck instead of doing it automatically. I think ext4 is pretty robust when it comes to corruption these days.

Re:please... (2, Funny)

PRMan (959735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214962)

Yeah. Not to troll, but if you want to be user-friendly like Windows, you can't dump out to a black screen and tell the user to run some command-line gobbledygook... every 3 months....

Re:please... (4, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213912)

regardless of why, I've never heard of that happen with an ext3 filesystem. Now imagine you're running a server, a trip to the datacentre to run fsck would be annoying.

Re:please... (-1, Flamebait)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214060)

Let me get this straight:

1. The file system has the power to brick your machine because of a clock setting
2. You immediately assume GP didn't read the error message
3. You wonder why casual users stay far away from Linux?

Re:please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214114)

If casual users are morons without reading comprehension I don't give a damn. Go stay with your moron proof OS, whichever that is.

Re:please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214850)

Casuals shouldn't have to deal with fucking morons like you writing filesystems that don't boot because you wrote a fucking hour into the future, fuckwit.

Re:please... (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214308)

That's pretty much it, although I never said 3 -- but you've got a good point. The distro should make sure the root FS is good and properly fsck'ed, and not rely on user input. I'm just pointing out that what the OP thought was a file system error might be something else.

Re:please... (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214356)

1. The file system has the power to brick your machine because of a clock setting

So claims one person. I've never experienced anything like this myself, nor have I heard of it from anyone else until now.

3. You wonder why casual users stay far away from Linux?

Hate to be snarky, but... "casual users" with all of their viruses, malware, crapware, crippleware, etc. are welcome to stay as far away from Linux as they like (and can afford)...

Re:please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214738)

I've never experienced anything like this myself, nor have I heard of it from anyone else until now.

Timestamp checking is a feature in ext4 and is quite sensible.

Re:please... (2, Funny)

X3J11 (791922) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214668)

1. The file system has the power to brick your machine because of a clock setting

I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Re:please... (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213594)

Ok don't tell anybody but I am still on ext2, pretty stable in humble my opinion ;-)

Jounaling and other functionality just isn't required for my servers and use cases. I would use ext3 or maybe even btrfs if I have to install Linux on a laptop.

Re:please... (2, Funny)

jornak (1377831) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213608)

In humble your opinion, sir?
I not understand do.

Re:please... (2, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213722)

Do not question master Yoda!

Re:please... (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213738)

I not understand do -> do I not understand ?
In humble your opinion -> opinion In humble your ?

see, simple enough..

durrr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214142)

whoosh

Re:please... (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214404)

Yes it is, you just don't know it. In the middle of a series of writes, yank the power cord, and see how it handles it.

Ubuntu... (3, Funny)

ProdigyPuNk (614140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213542)

Making Debian look better with every release!

Re:Ubuntu... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32213588)

Excuse me, but Debian is obviously making ITSELF look better with every release. It doesn't need the help of some shoddy "Linux For Dummies" OS based on it to make it look better.

Re:Ubuntu... (5, Funny)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213656)

Yeah, stupid ubuntu for trying to incorporate usability features into Linux. How's a linux user supposed to retain their air of smug supperiority if the average schmoe can install it. At least I have my HC11 microcontroller and assembly code to fall back on!

Re:Ubuntu... (1, Insightful)

EyelessFade (618151) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213876)

You mean unstable, not ready for mainstream.

Re:Ubuntu... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214272)

I'm pretty sure the microcontroller is ready for mainstream. Not entirely sure about the rest. Well, if Windows 95/98 defined what the mainstream would accept, then I guess just about any hand-turned assembly could be considered mainstream.

Re:Ubuntu... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214702)

Yeah, stupid ubuntu for trying to incorporate usability features into Linux. How's a linux user supposed to retain their air of smug supperiority if the average schmoe can install it. At least I have my HC11 microcontroller and assembly code to fall back on!

I'm sure it's just a typo, but just to clarify: *Kubuntu* is trying to incorporate usability features into Linux. Ubuntu is for the smug superiority set (Hey everyone! We use the Apple OS6 HIG!)

Re:Ubuntu... (1)

oatworm (969674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214808)

I'm sure it's just a typo, but just to clarify: *OpenSUSE* is trying to incorporate usability features into Linux. Kubuntu is for the smug superiority set that don't realize there are actually good KDE-based distributions out there.

Re:Ubuntu... (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214868)

You *must* have meant to type slackware...

Re:Ubuntu... (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214040)

It doesn't need the help of some shoddy "Linux For Dummies" OS based on it to make it look better.

You surely mean some shoddy "GNU/Linux for Dummies"

Re:Ubuntu... (0)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213718)

You can keep your ugly old broad. Me, I want something young and fresh, even if she's a little loopy.

Re:Ubuntu... (4, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213828)

You can keep your ugly old broad. Me, I want something young and fresh, even if she's a little loopy.

Loopy chicks fsck better.

Re:Ubuntu... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214124)

Yeah, but the older one knows how to get it done, while the loopy one just sits there with a blank stare...gets to be irritating to have to explain yourself over and over how to 'optimally' fsck things...

Re:Ubuntu... (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214906)

Just point them to the man pages, and they'll have all the command line flags figured out in no time. Now, figuring THEM out, on the other hand....

Re:Ubuntu... (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213814)

It's OK, now that someone leaked this top secret info, Ubuntu will back pedal, scrub the site of any mention of btrfs and then go back to the normal use of EXT$nextver.

Re:Ubuntu... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214452)

Making Debian look better with every release!

I don't know, there's been an Ubuntu machine in my music studio running mission critical applications for half a decade, and every time there's a new release, I install the new OS. Not once have I had to revert to the previous Ubuntu release.

When I first decided that Linux had a place in my studio, for things like serving up samples, off-loading real-time effects processing chores (using ReaMote in Cockos Reaper) and rendering masters, I originally decided to use Debian, but I guess I'm just not smart enough, because I could never get it configured the way I wanted. From my first attempt with Ubuntu Studio, I had success.

I'm glad there's a distro like Ubuntu for people like me. I know I don't get any coupons for nerd heaven for choosing it over Debian, but I sure get a lot of work done with it. Since 2004 there's been Windows, OSX and Linux running in my little project space, and each one gives me something the others don't (or won't).

Re:Ubuntu... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32215212)

I can second that.

I'm a hard core Unix admin and systems programmer with over 25 years experience, and I can vouch that for desktop use, Ubuntu puts the polish on its 95%+ Debian core. Sure, I can make Debian function as a desktop, but always with every released version of Debian it requires my Unix experience to get everything to work.

Debian is awesome for servers. But I'm using Ubuntu LTS on my laptop, home and work desktop.

Re:Ubuntu... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32215048)

Yeah really. Ubuntu is less stable than even Debian "unstable" (currently my Xvideo is broken) and frequently has broken packages if you go outside the mainstream (into "Universe"). e.g. 1, prboom has been broken in Ubuntu for more than one release. e.g. 2, this same Remnant guy decided that ALL fsck's should be skipped at boot on battery mode to work-around ext2/3's time consuming fsck every 25 mounts... completely breaking users with jfs or other filesystems that require a fsck after unclean shutdown.

ZFS comparison (2, Informative)

GoNINzo (32266) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213580)

Alternately, you could consider using ZFS if you can live with the uncertainty of the opensolaris project. The major plus is that all the functionality is already there.

ZFS has all the features that btrfs hopes to achieve already, plus major speed increases when using an SSD drive. When you have a read taking place in .3 ms instead of 9 ms, the speed increases are incredible.

My hope is that ZFS can be salvaged after Oracle decides what to do with the opensolaris project. If it's on linux, even better.

Re:ZFS comparison (3, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213724)

Alternately, you could consider using ZFS if you can live with the uncertainty of the opensolaris project. The major plus is that all the functionality is already there.

Don't forget that FreeBSD has a native implementation of ZFS as well. (You can also get ZFS for FUSE, but as such it's probably not suited for a main file system.)

Re:ZFS comparison (4, Informative)

phoenix_rizzen (256998) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213732)

ZFS is also available in FreeBSD 7.0 and later. It's even marked as "production quality" in FreeBSD 8.0 and later.

It's a few versions behind (ZFSv14) OpenSolaris (ZFSv24), but on par with Solaris 10 (ZFSv15). FreeBSD 8.1 should have ZFSv15 in it by the time it's released this summer. And there's work ongoing to bring ZFSv20-something into 9.0.

Re:ZFS comparison (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213914)

8.0 and OpenSolaris both support booting from ZFS. (Using the latest Grub, which the OpenSolaris contributed the ZFS.mod).

Having lost one of my mirrored boot drives and replacing it without a hiccup was nothing short of amazing. ZFS is very easy to use from the command line.

After fighting with Xen on Linux (and the billion different config instructions.). I finally just installed it in OpenSolaris and was done with it. (It's as simple as an 'apt-get' in debian).
My home server is a quad core CPU with 8GB of ram running Windows7 (PVM) and Debian64 (DomU) in Xen.

I like my linux machines, but I love my OpenSolaris server.

Re:ZFS comparison (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214454)

...except it's not production quality. Please skim the past 6-8 months of posts to the freebsd-fs and freebsd-stable lists: you'll be surprised at the number of error reports.

Booting from a ZFS pool on FreeBSD is also somewhat broken; users are still reporting issues with it, and booting from raidz still doesn't appear possible. Supposedly booting from a ZFS mirror works.

Simply put: if you want to use ZFS and expect stability, run OpenSolaris or Solaris 10.

Re:ZFS comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32213756)

Hopefully it will become abandoned, but not holding my breath. Wouldn't it be nice if Linux, Microsoft, and Apple used ZFS as their native file system in future OS builds?

Re:ZFS comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32213844)

ZFS on linux is not going to happen. technically no problem, but the licenses don't allow to link it into the kernel, so you have to use fuse which is just slow as hell. stupid licenses (one way or another...)

Re:ZFS comparison (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213940)

In the words of Danese Cooper, who is no longer with Sun, one of the reasons for basing the CDDL on the Mozilla license was that the Mozilla license is GPL-incompatible. Cooper stated, at the 6th annual Debian conference, that the engineers who had written the Solaris kernel requested that the license of OpenSolaris be GPL-incompatible. "Mozilla was selected partially because it is GPL incompatible. That was part of the design when they released OpenSolaris. [...] the engineers who wrote Solaris [...] had some biases about how it should be released, and you have to respect that"

http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg [debian.net]

btrfs may have a better foundation (5, Interesting)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213916)

But btrfs may actually have a better foundation than ZFS. When ZFS was first conceived they didn't believe a file system could do btree's and COW. btrfs has proven that it can be done. See the section "btrfs: Pre-history" at:

A short history of btrfs [lwn.net]

volume management (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214640)

But btrfs may actually have a better foundation than ZFS. When ZFS was first conceived they didn't believe a file system could do btree's and COW. btrfs has proven that it can be done. See the section "btrfs: Pre-history" at: A short history of btrfs [lwn.net]

And ZFS incorporates volume management, so no more pvcreate/vgcreate/lvcreate rigamarole; and LVM doesn't even give you mirroring/RAID--you have you have to use a completely different software stack for that.

You can have your b-trees, I'll take my "zpool create <mirror|raidz[1-3]> <devs>", thanks. "zfs send/recv" is also awesome.

Just waiting for built-in crypto and "bp rewrite" now, but otherwise I've been happily using ZFS in production for a few years.

Re:volume management (4, Informative)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214810)

Obviously, Btrfs also does volume management without LVM. It even manages to do better than ZFS in some areas, for example Btrfs can reduce the pool capacity easily thanks to back references [kernel.org] (a new and cool fs technique which is being incorporated to Btrfs), whereas ZFS still can't reduce the capacity of a pool and it will take a lot of complexity to implement it (you really should read the link)

Re:volume management (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214848)

Btrfs has built-in volume management (including intelligent RAID) too...

Re:btrfs may have a better foundation (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32215018)

Now why would they believe that in 2007? Volume Shadow Copy, implemented on MS Server 2003 and in Vista clients, uses COW on top of NTFS, which is B+ Tree. I mean reading that it sounds like the basic system they use is rather similar to NTFS. No problem there, NTFS works quite well, however it seems to be this sort of willful, or perhaps pretend, ignorance that such a thing didn't already exist and work well in a major OS.

NTFS? (1)

thule (9041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32215248)

I don't know that NTFS implements their shadow system like btrfs. If they do, you might want to inform IBM and ACM Transactions on Computational Logic and let them know that they should have publish Microsoft's research instead. The paper the refer to was published August 2007.

B-trees, Shadowing, and Clones [tau.ac.il] by Ohad Rodeh, IBM Haifa Research Labs.

Re:ZFS comparison (5, Interesting)

jtosburn (63943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213924)

I think you don't give quite enough credit to btrfs; it isn't merely a johnny-come-lately, but rather another step forward in filesystem evolution. Try here [lwn.net] for a good article on btrfs, by one of the zfs developers, Valerie Aurora. If you like, just skip to the section entitled "btrfs: A brief comparison with ZFS", one flamebait bit of which is this: "In my opinion, the basic architecture of btrfs is more suitable to storage than that of ZFS."

With that said, no one thinks it's ready for critical data storage yet.

Re:ZFS comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214088)

Btrfs has one feature that ZFS has had on its "to-do" list for , what, six years now? Removing an empty disk from the pool.

Re:ZFS comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32215098)

Opensolaris has horrible driver support, and the 32-bit version doesn't support drives >1TB (yes, really). I can't run it natively because of my Marvell SATA controller so I was running it in Virtualbox (32-bit since I don't have hardware 64-bit virtualization) for ZFS, but then when I got 2TB drives it refused to work with them.

I switched to FreeBSD and have managed to work out some initial wrinkles and ZFS seems pretty solid now.

Also, Opensolaris is no longer providing security updates except to paying users, so I strongly recommend everyone wanting to try ZFS goes straight to FreeBSD 8.

features & performance (1)

aintnostranger (1811098) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213584)

how well does it compare to filesystems like ZFS and reiser 4 feature-wise and performance-wise ?

Re:features & performance (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32213700)

You can't compare it to Reiser4. Reiser just kills everything out there.

Re:features & performance (1)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213754)

Too soon.

Re:features & performance (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32213786)

Reiser is a killer FS, but you have to keep your eyes on it...it totally chokes under certain conditions, with the result being your system gets locked up.

Poor Reiser... (1, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214156)

He imported a Russian wife just to get rid of the old geeks-have-no-girlfriends jokes. Now he has created a brand new kind of geek joke.

Re:Poor Reiser... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214400)

In Soviet Russia, you kill ReiserFS!

Re:features & performance (3, Informative)

XCondE (615309) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214376)

Really? Are we still doing that?

Re:features & performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214200)

many answers to your questions are here -> http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/ [lwn.net] , benchmarking is probably still premature though

It hasn't been ruled out, but it is ruled unlikely (4, Informative)

pwagland (472537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213636)

From the article:

It’s a tough gauntlet, and it would only made with the knowledge that production servers and desktops can be run on Lucid as a fully supported version of Ubuntu at the same time. I’d give it a 1-in-5 chance.

There are quite a few pre-conditions for it to be made alpha, so it is not as likely as the summary makes it out to be.

Re:It hasn't been ruled out, but it is ruled unlik (2, Funny)

emj (15659) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213788)

Thank you, exacly what I wanted to say. I mean it hasn't been ruled out that the Meerkat CDs will ship on ICMB from South Africa, which is slightly more likely than the CDs shipping with Btrfs as default.

Encryption? (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213648)

Will btrfs have it or not? Stolen laptops want to know.

Re:Encryption? (2)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213808)

Why wouldn't you just do your encryption at the block device level using dm-crypt [saout.de] ? Then it doesn't matter what filesystem you're using.

Re:Encryption? (2, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214140)

I think hardware full disk encryption is the only way to go. There's no performance penalty and it's transparent to the OS (which is great for those of us who multiboot). Our experience with PGP and Credant has been horrible, making some laptops unusably slow. Is dm-crypt that much better?

Re:Encryption? (1)

Cley Faye (1123605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32215050)

As far as I can tell, dm-crypt doesn't make my laptop unusably slow. I didn't run performance test on it, but in a day to day usage I can't notice a difference in performance since I've set full disk encryption with it.

Re:Encryption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32215206)

I've used full-disk encryption on Linux with ext4 + LVM + dm-crypt. I'd say that the performance hit is rather negligible for regular desktop usage. However just creating a snapshot in LVM does slow down the system noticeably and there are other annoying issues associated with LVM snapshots.

This is the reason I switched to FreeBSD with full disk encryption on my laptop (ZFS+geli). It's much more flexible and easier to use. I'd say that the performance is also better in general (and no visible impact when using snapshots). At this point I wouldn't go back to Linux (at least not until BTRFS matures and becomes widely used and tested).
 

Re:Encryption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214220)

use dmcrypt. it's fs agnostic.

Obligatory (-1, Redundant)

Coder4Life (1396697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213680)

http://xkcd.com/178/ [xkcd.com]

Just another reason I will continue to use slackware over pukebuntu

Re:Obligatory (1)

Deosyne (92713) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213856)

Because a web comic made a joke based upon the name? Well, I suppose you have to have some sort of requirement in order to decide.

Re:Obligatory (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213962)

And the joke would work even if 's/Ubuntu/Slackware/'.

features (4, Informative)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213692)

The main Btrfs features include:

Extent based file storage (2^64 max file size)
Space efficient packing of small files
Space efficient indexed directories
Dynamic inode allocation
Writable snapshots
Subvolumes (separate internal filesystem roots)
Object level mirroring and striping
Checksums on data and metadata (multiple algorithms available)
Compression
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
Currently the code is in an early implementation phase, and not all of these have yet been implemented. See the Development timeline for detailed release plans.

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

Re:features (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32215040)

Does Btrfs support proportional fonts?

Why the stupid censorship? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214110)

Ahh yes... (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213744)

Btrfs or butterfs. This should go smoothly. I hear it's throughput is very fast.

Ubuntu speculation? MeeGo confirmation wins. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32213752)

Btrfs will be the default filesystem for MeeGo:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.meego.devel/1510 [gmane.org]

Why does this article scare me? (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213774)

Granted, I'm usually a version behind on Ubuntu. I've just upgraded to 9.1 recently. However, with ReiserFS, EXT and other file systems seeming to be very well seasoned and working, why bring in something completely new?

Re:Why does this article scare me? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213862)

Because stability is extremely boring. And difficult to charge for services on things that never break.

Re:Why does this article scare me? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213994)

And difficult to charge for services on things that never break.

Charge?

10.10 won't be a LTS release, so nobody in their right mind would use it for enterprise servers/desktops, and I doubt anyone buys home desktop support from Canonical.

Re:Why does this article scare me? (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214206)

OEMs do. Canonical's business operations are largely opaque to the community. Sources of revenue I've discovered include: OEMs like Dell buying engineering support contracts for their Ubuntu laptop/netbook offerings, hardware manufacturers paying Ubuntu to port to their new platform, and OEMs like Toshiba paying Canonical to run certification testing.

For netbooks, faster boot and performance is a feature worth pursuing. At this point all I've seen is Scott mention they'll try it and test it before the point of no return that comes with time based releases.

Re:Why does this article scare me? (2, Informative)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213990)

Reiser is basically out - it's simply not being developed fast enough to keep up with the curve. EXT 4 seems unstable.
      (Just my humble opinion, but I went back to EXT 3 for a complete reinstall of Kubuntu 9.4 after giving it a try for a good 3 months, and I've been installing various Linux's since stormlinux back in 2001. I haven't completely wiped an install (well, not at the cost of losing any data that might have even minimal value at all) and rebuilt from scratch in years, outside of that one case.).
        EXT 3 is sufficient for most users needs, probably 90% of users overall, but I have to respect the ones who feel its limits - they are probably right to chafe under them. People do the damnedest things with Linux, and some of those things genuinely need very specific, perhaps idiosyncratic journaling methods, and other specialised file management techniques.

Only if they can customize it ... (-1, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213804)

... they need to be able to "Ubuntu-fy" it first:
  1. give it a fugly color-blind scheme;
  2. move some of the control bits around from their usual places;
  3. claim that it somehow makes it "more friendly to Windows users";
  4. screw up a few things that work fine right now;

That sound you're about to hear is a million Ubuntu fanbois gnashing their teeth. Of course, most of them are posting from Windows, but that's a story for another time :-)

Right (5, Insightful)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 4 years ago | (#32213938)

This is a filesystem, where the developers keep finding major (including fatal) bugs basically every other week. If even the slightest idea of making it the default filesystem in a distribution scheduled for release in 6 months crosses your mind, seek professional help. Now.

Re:Right (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214328)

In distribution, which have claimed several times, that they suggest to use LTS releases, leaving regular releases for early adopters.

p.s. ZFS have had fatal bugs too after major stable release.

Re:Right (4, Informative)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214576)

Indeed. Btrfs is still making disk format changes. They aren't very serious, but hey, they are there. Not a sign of stability, no matter how much cheksumming you throw at it.

I can see why they think it's ready! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214028)

[linux-2.6]$ git log fs/btrfs | egrep "Author.*ubuntu" | wc -l
0

I mean, with that amount of effort, it's about time they are able to finally bask in the glory of their creation!

It'll also be comforting to know their btrfs developers will be able to resolve any problems that may crop up.

Just sayin'

Re:I can see why they think it's ready! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214284)

[linux-2.6]$ git log fs/btrfs | egrep "Author.*ubuntu" | wc -l
0

Ok so this is more relevant:

[linux-2.6]$ git log fs/btrfs | egrep "Author.*canonical" | wc -l
0

but you get the idea.

Better Options (3, Insightful)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214164)

How about either
  • Having no default, and presenting a list of options (with suitable help, detailing why each would be a good or a bad choice); or
  • Having an intelligent default, based on disk capacity, use (i.e. boot volume or not), and technology (magnetic versus solid state)

Brt-fs ?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32214186)

Why does Britain have its own filesystem, and why does the Ubuntu Market (which I assume is a free market) want to use it?

Re:Brt-fs ?!? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214340)

Why does Britain have its own filesystem, and why does the Ubuntu Market (which I assume is a free market) want to use it?

I don't know, but as long as this Maverick doesn't ship together with Harebrained Hockeymom, it might do okay...

Developed by Oracle, you say? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214362)

Speak on... who owns the inevitable patents on it? Where is the clear, explicit and irrevocable patent licensing or covenant on them?

No... no, I think I'll pass on it. You're either trusty-worthy, or you're not.

Is it better in the recovery department than ext3? (4, Interesting)

Enleth (947766) | more than 4 years ago | (#32214708)

Personally, I'm using reiserfs (that is, reiser3, not reiser4) solely due to its outstanding disaster recovery capabilities. No matter what happens to the media or the filesystem itself, "reiserfsck --rebuild-tree" is going to bring back everything that was not directly overwritten or corrupted. I've had many things happen to my disks (head crashes, several gigabytes from the beginnig of the partition being overwritten by a borked OS isntaller, "rm -rf blah/ *" instead of "rm -rf blah/*" and so on), and every single time, --rebuild-tree recovered everything that still was there to be recovered. As far as I know, this is due to the fact that all the filesystem metadata is distributed evenly throughout the partition, heavily replicated and identifiable using some kind of magic hashes even when there is no higher-order structure left (so a --rebuild-tree process can just do a linear scan of the damaged partition and find all the "dangling" inodes with ease).

As far as I know, this is not possible (especially using the standard fsck utility as with reiserfs) with the ext* family of filesystems.

So, does btrfs have similar capabilities? If so, I'm going to be quite interested in testing it, even though I'm not using Ubuntu.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>