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!

Tux3 File System Could Finally Make It Into the Mainline Linux Kernel

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the voted-onto-the-island dept.

Data Storage 121

An anonymous reader writes "The Tux3 file-system that's been in development since 2008 as the public replacement to the patent-blocked Tux2 file-system is now under review for inclusion into the Linux kernel. Tux3 tries to act as a 'light, tight, modern file-system. We offer a fresh approach to some ancient problems,' according to its lead developer, Daniel Phillips. Tux3 strives for minimal resource consumption but lacks enterprise-grade reliability at this point. Tux3, at the end of the day, tries to be 'robust, fast, and simple' with the Linux FS reportedly being as fast as other well known file-systems. Details on the project are at Tux3.org."

cancel ×

121 comments

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

Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (3, Insightful)

haruchai (17472) | about 4 months ago | (#47028079)

and they expect to be competitive with ZFS?? They have a LOT of work to do.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028229)

and they expect to be competitive with ZFS?? They have a LOT of work to do.

It's just another run of the mill linux filesystem which is to say completely useless.
The only real viable filesystems on linux are XFS, followed by EXT 4 and BTRFS (only in experimental form).

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 4 months ago | (#47029577)

I only use XFS and ZFS on Linux these days, with exception of ext2 on some /boot volumes. Nobody has shown me a compelling reason to deviate from what works.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (3, Interesting)

Jody Bruchon (3404363) | about 3 months ago | (#47030793)

This is probably irrelevant for you, but I ran into issues with software running on i386 with XFS and newer kernels. Programs not compiled with -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 used the 32-bit versions of certain file-related system calls, and the default mount options for XFS changed at some point to allow 64-bit inode numbers to be created. What would happen is the program would readdir and choke the instant it hit a file or directory on an inode number greater than 2^32; the fstat calls returned EOVERFLOW and processing aborted. You'd go into a directory with GQView, for example, and mysteriously see i.e. three images and one directory where you knew there were tens of directories and hundreds of images.

Obviously, x86_64 platforms don't have this issue, but I was operating an i386 server since 2008 until just a few months ago and I found it to be extremely annoying and (at first) difficult to figure out what was happening. There is surprisingly little information about XFS and 64-bit file syscall issues when all you have is strace spouting EOVERFLOW at you and don't immediately pin the issue to the filesystem in use.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 3 months ago | (#47031191)

That's a darn good find, and definitely a really annoying issue. You're correct that 99% of the stuff I manage is x86-64; I've only got a couple of legacy x86 systems floating around, and fortunately in this case they don't use XFS. I can only imagine the amount of $head_desk you went through before realizing what the root cause was in the case you described.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (4, Insightful)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47028323)

It's a worthy goal to have. We need more competition in the FS sector. Many times competition is the inspiration for new features, even if some of these FS don't even make it off the ground. ZFS is great, but it's not perfect, and they only have so many resources to throw at new ideas to test. Monoculture is never a good thing.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (1)

bheading (467684) | about 4 months ago | (#47028449)

On the contrary. What we have in filesystems at the moment is fragmentation.

We need people pitching in with stabilizing and fixing one major FS in Linux. It looks to me as if that should be btrfs.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (2, Insightful)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47028547)

btrfs is interesting, but it's taking a long time to get anywhere and it has some big backers. I've also read some really well written blogs from sysadmins who have been Unix admins since the beginning of time, and they had some really good examples of some "Features" of btrfs that a sysadmin should never-ever use under any circumstance, and some features that are half-asses that are nearly a requirement for any good sysadmin, but cannot be done because of those other "bad" features.

One such example is btrfs allows a volume to be mounted under multiple parents. In order to handle this "awesome" feature, they had to give up the ability to atomically snapshot across volumes. In ZFS, if you mount a volume under another volume and snapshot the parent, the children will automatically be atomically included, not so with btrfs, that's an impossibility to add a feature that should never be used.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (1)

cmurf (2833651) | about 3 months ago | (#47030065)

What blogs discuss btrfs features that should never be used under any circumstances?

Could you elaborate on your example? I not understanding what commands make it possible to mount a volume "under multiple parents" how this differs from shared or bind mounts. I can mount an XFS volume on two separate mountpoints, not a big deal. Btrfs volumes can't be snapshot, just their subvolumes, maybe that's what you're referring to? The lack of recursively snapshotable nested subvolumes?

Btrfs and ZFS are different when it comes to snapshots. In Btrfs snapshots are subvolumes that are "prefilled". They aren't otherwise unique like they are on ZFS. And that means there isn't really a parent child relationship on Btrfs, you can delete "parent" subvolumes that have "child" snapshots, unlike on ZFS.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030189)

I used btrfs for a year or so on a server of mine and it seemed fine for a while, but the last six months it just would lose its mind on the PC every few weeks with daemons zombified that prevented me from even rebooting the system -- I couldn't unmount or sync the damn thing because the btrfs helper processes were stuck. The btrfs-tools would segfault, luckily I found a newer version that I had to compile from source that could check the volume so I could get it back online.

I don't trust btrfs at all at this point; when they say it's not ready for prime time, they mean it. My own fault for not taking them literally. I didn't lose any data as a result, thank $diety the current tools were able to clean up the filesystem. But it wasn't worth the sleepless nights where I had to consider whether it was worth it trying to salvage a 'corrupted' drive full of files, or just give up and reformat.

Now I just use ext3/4, BTSync and backintime to roll my own backups and mirrors. I didn't ever really use the snapshot features anyway.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030263)

Anecdata sucks.

I've been using BTRFS on my laptop without any data-loss issues for about four years now, and my other home machines for about one. In the early days I certainly had some issues that required me to take down the system and play around with unlink, cat, and friends for a while (those ENOSPC issues were super annoying!), and there was a nasty bug in 3.10.0 or maybe 3.11.0 or so, so I wouldn't unconditionally recommend it for production systems.

But, for me, on the balance, it's been good. Volume snapshots are a great way to get a consistent view of a system for making live backups. COW is a great way to save a ton of space when making stuff like per-application Wine installations.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031461)

I tried btrfs as the default file system on Fedora 20 in a virtualbox VM. Tried enabling quota on /home and it crashed and corrupted the whole volume. Reinstalled, tried again, same thing.

Now maybe I'm doing it wrong, because I find the userland tools for btrfs to be a complete dog's breakfast. The ideology behind the interface I just "don't get", while ZFS makes perfect sense to me and is very intuitive.

So far, not liking brtfs.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (2)

sjames (1099) | about 3 months ago | (#47031123)

There are valid reasons to want to mount a volume in more than one place. For example, strong namespace based isolation for sensitive processes/users.

Over all, btrfs is much more flezible than ZFS. In the end, it looks like it will be the superior filesystem. For example, it has a much greater flexibility in changing the underlying storage over time. Why should gradually upgrading the underlying pool be a disruptive process. It seems natural that as drives age out to replace them with bigger drives. Ideally, the filesystem will move things around as needed to maintain the specified level of redundancy and to utilize as much of the new storage as possible.

I am currently using ZFS because btrfs isn't yet sufficiently mature, especially wrt redundancy

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (3, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#47029283)

I disagree. The different approach of ZFS means it should be far better than btrfs when you have many disks, yet it makes almost no sense at all with single disks which is where btrfs makes sense.
Different tools for different jobs.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 3 months ago | (#47029769)

> ZFS is great, but it's not perfect

Serious question: I'm curious as to what those would be?

The license?

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (2)

sjames (1099) | about 3 months ago | (#47031173)

The license is an annoyance, but can be lived with, more or less.

I would like to see more flexibility in re-structuring the zpool. I see no intrinsic reason why a pool can't start out without redundancy and then have it added after the fact (the equivilent of bringing a soft raid up in degraded mode and adding in the other devices later) or have the geometry changed later. It should be perfectly feasible to start small and over time add more disks and replace small disks with larger ones. I would really like to be able to evacuate a disk before pulling and replacing it (given enough free capacity elsewhere in the pool.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#47029267)

Different aims.

Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | about 3 months ago | (#47030311)

Indeed, different aims. Tux3 has the modest goal of being a light, tight and fast filesystem without ambition of also being a volume manager.

TFS misses one point (5, Informative)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 4 months ago | (#47028113)

From TFA: "Tux3 is yet another interesting open-source file-system designed for specialized cases."

NIHFS? (4, Interesting)

BaronM (122102) | about 4 months ago | (#47028121)

First off, I think that 'better than ZFS' is a good and legitimate goal, seeing as how ZFS is very, very good, but not perfect.

That said, there's also BTFS and HAMMER aiming to be 'better than ZFS'.

I know: everyone wants to scratch their own itch, and there is no reason that multiple projects in the same area should necessarily been see as competing, and if I'm unhappy about it, I should just go write my own instead of complaining. Did I cover everything? :)

I just wonder sometimes if Linux wouldn't have moved beyond EXT4, X11, and the desktop environment wars if the 'not invented here' syndrome were just a little less prevalent.

At least... (0)

warrax_666 (144623) | about 4 months ago | (#47028153)

At least it'll be moving past X11 in a year or two :). But then people with no understanding are arguing that Wayland is NIH-X11 -- it's so confusing having to understand nuance!

Re:At least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028277)

Most ppl don't have a problem with Wayland just so long as good ol' X11 can be subbed in its place. It gets problematic when choice is reduced. I've already jumped distros to avoid systemd and upstart. I'll jump again if the distro I use doesn't give me a choice.

Choice (3, Insightful)

warrax_666 (144623) | about 4 months ago | (#47028399)

Oh, please. A modern Linux distro actually needs to provide hotplug that actually works, a tear-free desktop experience, reliable service termination/startup/restarts, etc.

Stop living in the past.

Re:Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028533)

To each their own. I'm more interested in simplicity and stability than in shiney. I think that a lot of people are, too. If that's "living in the past", then bring it on and bring more of it.

Re:Choice (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47028631)

If you haven't noticed, he *was* talking about simplicity. Just the MIT type, not the New Jersey one.

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47029061)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Re:K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030955)

Andrew Peter Kowalsky (APK) needs to go away.

K. S. Kyosuke can't backup his b.s. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031043)

Apk's simply directly confronting a name tossing prick (K.S. Kyosuke) who earned this.

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47029079)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47029085)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47029101)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

In case you hadn't noticed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47029123)

You've been called out. Why run from it? Is it since you started it (can't back up your namecalling)?

Pretty much it in a nutshell (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47029149)

Dctionaries have K.S. Kyosucky's photo by "pisspot punk" and no balls. Big mouth/no balls and his mouth writes checks his dull brain can't manage to cash.

Re:In case you hadn't noticed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47029625)

Dictionaries have K.S. Kyosucky's photo by "pisspot punk" & no balls. Big mouth/no balls & his mouth writes checks his dull brain can't cash

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030997)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031003)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031011)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031025)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031029)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031053)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031059)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031065)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031079)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47031089)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Re:Choice (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47029153)

If you don't like shiney, then there's always the console. For everyone else who likes desktops for stuff like videos or web browsing, annoyances like tearing is a distraction, like a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Tearing was an issue fixed back in the 90s.

Re:Choice (1, Troll)

causality (777677) | about 4 months ago | (#47029449)

If you don't like shiney, then there's always the console. For everyone else who likes desktops for stuff like videos or web browsing, annoyances like tearing is a distraction, like a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Tearing was an issue fixed back in the 90s.

I've used X11 and later Xorg for about the last 15 years. I've never had issues with tearing or any other visual artifacts. Back in the day I certainly had a real good time with modelines (fun!) but I've never had problems with tearing.

Am I the only one who hears complaints like this and scratches his head wondering what the fuss is all about? Lots of these mysterious complaints have never happened to me. I don't believe you are being dishonest, I just would like a more in-depth explanation about what problem you had, what solutions you tried that didn't work, and what you think the working solution would or should be.

Re:Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030401)

Try using screen rotation.

Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028995)

lol, anybody else read that as "buttplug"?

Oh, please. A modern Linux distro actually needs to provide buttplug that actually works, a tear-free desktop experience, reliable service termination/startup/restarts, etc.

Re:Choice (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 3 months ago | (#47030333)

So what's you're saying is that a modern Linux distro should be more like FreeBSD?

Re:Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030509)

Xorg is exactly as broken on the BSDs as it's on linux :(

Re:Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030487)

Amen to that. Actually that's something that every OS should do. Yesterday I spent 4 hours trying to solve tearing in Windows 7. No luck. Three monitors and two of them are upright. An don't get me started on the drivers since I'm using two different GFX cards. Took hours just to figure out how to which drivers I need to get all of them working. Funny thing is that I used Linux Mint to find out if the setup will eventually work in Windows. Linux Mint just booted and I had three monitor working just like that. Also (except setting two monitors to portrait) worked instantly. Microsoft should catch up. It is not even funny anymore.

Re:Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030517)

Changing screen rotation should be trivial with xrandr or your favorite DEs display control widget.
Though as other ACs mentioned, Xorg + RandR rotation = guaranteed tearing.

Re:Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030873)

Oh, please. A modern Linux distro actually needs to provide hotplug that actually works, a tear-free desktop experience, reliable service termination/startup/restarts, etc.

Stop living in the past.

Lots of people forget that some other people use Linux for work and have chosen Linux for the server features. At least design new features the way so they don't ruin old reliable and useful stuff. Pulling windows from remote machines is much nicer when you don't have to transfer the whole desktop and can arrange the windows the way you like. Switching between multiple rdp/vnc session is really hampering and feels like win8 metro.

Systemd could work if the startup would be more flexible. They could at least allow for some of the stuff on mounted filesystems. The old start styles had post-mount and post-network points.

I don't mind new features, but check for regressions please. A lot of breakage is unneeded.

Re:At least... (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#47029293)

But then people with no understanding

That's a bit rich after some of your earlier posts about X and Wayland. I suggest you join the wayland mailing list and get some understanding before making such comments.

Re:NIHFS? (0)

grub (11606) | about 4 months ago | (#47028191)


When anything has a claim to fame of "trying to be better than $GOLD_STANDARD", I am skeptical. There must be very compelling reasons to not just stick with what is tried and true. ZFS is the cat's meow, "trying to be better than" when we're talking about something as critical as a filesystem... I'll wait and see, thanks.

Re:NIHFS? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028539)

this is not the only weasel word infested post by you to this same article.
who claims that zfs is $GOLD_STANDARD? and which version of zfs
are you talking about? oracle keeps putting out incompatible versions, and
then there are the various opensolaris and bsd verions. ... saying $GOLD_STANDARD
implies something that is clearly not true --- that there is "a" zfs.

Re:NIHFS? (4, Interesting)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47028685)

OpenZFS. They're getting rid of "versions" and just having "Feature flags". This will allow you to create ZFS pools on one system, and just make sure what ever features that are only supported on another target system, are enable when you create the pool.

Re:NIHFS? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028609)

I can see Tux3 used in some special cases, but there are so many filesystems that should be tossed in the Linux kernel first, IMHO. A few thoughts/ideas:

1: A successor for SquashFS except with the option of some ECC to detect corruption and optionally to fix it. That way, a compressed image can be somewhat self-healing.

2: Hooks for ZFS on Linux. Because of the license differences, it can't be included into the kernel proper, but might as well make it as easy as possible to have it used on bootup, perhaps as a root filesystem.

3: Not really a filesystem, but extensions to LVM3 to give features similar to products like UnRAID. That way, one can have a drive dedicated for parity, a drive as a write "landing zone", autotiering, hot spares, encryption on that level, etc.

4: A filesystem designed for WORM, with each set of writes cryptographically signed, perhaps with signed hashes from an external timestamping service. Similar to UDF, except with cryptography and maybe even error correction so if there is damage, it can be repaired. That way, it will be hard to tamper with the FS unless it is zeroed and rewritten or rolled back from snapshots. This way, removable hard drives can be used for archival storage and there is protection from tampering.

Re:NIHFS? (0)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 4 months ago | (#47028963)

should necessarily been see

I'll bite. What's your native language? To a native speaker of English, that would have been "should necessarily be seen".

But attaching the tense to the "to be" isn't totally out of bounds in some languages. I think.

So, what language did you grow up thinking in?

Re:NIHFS? (2)

BaronM (122102) | about 4 months ago | (#47029147)

Apparently, I grew up speaking 'typo'.

I suspect it's an editing error where I was writing in present tense (be seen as...), started a switch to past tense (been seen as...), and instead ended up with that ridiculous construction.

Oops.

As an old OpenVMS fan, this isn't... (2)

Nutria (679911) | about 4 months ago | (#47028141)

what I think of when someone writes "versioning filesystem".

Re:As an old OpenVMS fan, this isn't... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 months ago | (#47028181)

As versioning goes, FILES-11 was barely good enough to be called built in un-delete. Nowhere near as good as just checking all your files into git.

Re:As an old OpenVMS fan, this isn't... (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 4 months ago | (#47028283)

As versioning goes, FILES-11 was barely good enough to be called built in un-delete.

Mainly because -- in my 25 years using FILES-11 -- I've never heard of versioning called "undelete".

"Persistent undo" is the best term to describe going back to a prior file version.

parent delays (3, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | about 4 months ago | (#47028155)

So tux2 was ready in 2000, and it took 14 years to rewrite it to avoid parents? Oh how much patents help innovation!

Re:parent delays (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028165)

So tux2 was ready in 2000, and it took 14 years to rewrite it to avoid parents? Oh how much patents help innovation!

Few more years and those patents will expire and we can use both!

Re:parent delays (3, Informative)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | about 3 months ago | (#47030389)

So tux2 was ready in 2000, and it took 14 years to rewrite it to avoid parents? Oh how much patents help innovation!

Few more years and those patents will expire and we can use both!

Tux3 is a better design. Tux2 was more along the lines of ZFS and Btrfs, that is, multiply-rooted trees sharing subtrees. Tux3 is a single tree with exactly one pointer to each extent. Considerably easier to check and repair. Of course we need to see if it turns out that way so please stay tuned.

Re:parent delays (4, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 months ago | (#47028257)

took 14 years to rewrite it to avoid parents!

A lot of these linux developers are pretty young.

Re:parent delays (1, Interesting)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 4 months ago | (#47028313)

Politicians could at least recognize the faster pace in the IT world compared to other technology industries, and lessen the patent terms for software patents.

I also don't know why there should be a difference between a patent troll and a large company with lots of 'defensive' patents suing other companies because of "swipe to unlock" features.

Re:parent delays (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 months ago | (#47028393)

That's lucky, it took me 18 years to get free of my parents. Although it might be more accurately described as, "they kicked me out of the house." But let's not go there.

Re:parent delays (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028571)

Daniel Phillips is a fool who hasn't learned not to do nice things for scummy people.

Re:parent delays (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030559)

By now those patents has expired. so e van go back to tux2 and scrap the rubbish written in last 14 years...

Re:parent delays (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030815)

Well, if Tux2 offered anything innovative, it wouldn't have hit that patent wall.
Patents == someont beat you to the punch and did it before you.

Could any of the authors get away with murder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028163)

It's an unlikely but relevant question when considering Linux filesystems.

Re:Could any of the authors get away with murder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028185)

looks like a linux-in-drones-means-devs-are-murderers troll has been born.

Re:Could any of the authors get away with murder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028211)

Close, but no cigar (said the drone pilot).

Hint: It was only 2006 - how young are /.ers these days?

Re:Could any of the authors get away with murder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028371)

OK, found it :)

Holy reiserfsck, how bizzare, how fscking bizarre.

By that time I had my fun with a visual Microsoft product.

So the /.ers all have worked with mainframes and such?

Re:Could any of the authors get away with murder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47029583)

I was thinking "hey! it can't be 2006, that's like a decade ago, I clearly remember reading about KillerFS the day I met my wife! Oh... I see... Now I feel old."
Now get off my lawn!

PS: For those wondering, my wife is alive and well. And yes this post is intended to hurt anyone who's older than me.

ZFS or fail (1)

grub (11606) | about 4 months ago | (#47028171)


Come to the 21st century, use ZFS.

Clearly (1, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 4 months ago | (#47028207)

The way ZFS saved Sun marks it as an über-technology.

Since Trolling is an art, and stuff.

Re:Clearly (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#47029327)

Being seen to be worth being eaten by a larger fish is not a sign of failure in technology companies.

Re:ZFS or fail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028517)

yes, if zfs worked correctly, it would be the ultimate evolution of 70s technology --- a non-distributed file system that may take an indeterminate time to export and recover. but it doesn't. i've seen customers lose lots of data with zfs. i have not had this experience with other file systems.

Re:ZFS or fail (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47028745)

I've never heard of anyone ever losing data with ZFS, even people with petabytes of R&D data.

Re: ZFS or fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47029003)

There is nothing in ZFS that prevents your data to be scrambled. What ZFS provides is knowledge that the data has been scrambled so you don't suffer silent data corruption.

Re: ZFS or fail (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 4 months ago | (#47029223)

And it uses that detection to fix the bad data from good data from your other RAID drives. Not just using one drive, right? Can't blame the FS for mistakes of the user, you also can't blame the FS for really bad luck. The Earth blew up when the Sun went super-nova. ZFS is a bad FS because it didn't protect my data.

Re: ZFS or fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47029879)

If you have RAID 1, RAID-Z2 or RAID-Z3, yes. It will fix it. RAID-Z will not fix bit rot, and a zpool scrub will definitely tell you that.

Re: ZFS or fail (1)

cbreak (1575875) | about 3 months ago | (#47030843)

Any type of redundancy is enough to fix errors, as long as you have at least one correct copy. raidz has one copy redundancy, raidz2 has two copies redundancy, and mirrored drives have as much redundancy as you want.

Re:ZFS or fail (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 4 months ago | (#47029321)

It doesn't entirely save you from failing disk controllers but does warn you that it is going on. I've lost four files that way, all new multi-GB temporary files that were easily recreated or no longer required, but it does happen when you keep failing systems limping along until the replacement arrives.

It's old and mature -- so let's come up (2)

fisted (2295862) | about 4 months ago | (#47028293)

..with something new already.

Is the general problem of the GNU- and Linux world.

Backstory (3, Interesting)

eclectro (227083) | about 4 months ago | (#47028363)

This is the story of the patents involved. [swpat.org] It's not so much that there was any litigation, but rather the ongoing threat that there would be (for arguably stuff that was already being done.)

Untested and unused always tests as faster (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028373)

Systems that no one uses always test out faster than ones that actually work, deal with edge cases, do reliable recovery from hard crashes, etc. That's why ReiserFS was always faster, but kept hiding the corpses in the woods and pretending complete ignorance of having destroyed your data.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser

Come on, how could you not trust yet another "fan boi" burdened filesystem that's never been been shown as stable?

Waste of time and effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028383)

Aw, come one.

A local file system won't really rock one's boat anymore these days. Today it's all about global namespace and distribtuted file systems, ideally made highly available and replicated synchronously in real time on kernel level.

This one was a real waste of time and developer resources.

Waste of time and effort (0)

DF5JT (589002) | about 4 months ago | (#47028423)

Aw, come on.

A local file system won't really rock one's boat anymore these days. Today it's all about global name space and distributed file systems, ideally made highly available and replicated synchronously in real time on kernel level.

This one was a real waste of time and developer resources.

Re:Waste of time and effort (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | about 3 months ago | (#47030403)

Those shiny distributed file systems run on top of boring local filesystems.

YASF (c) forver by me (2)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 4 months ago | (#47028577)

YASF or Yet Another File System.

Well someone has yet another personal project they want us all to take seriously. Really? I mean Really?

Of the numerous file systems out there, and I have tried a whole boat load of them, the one that is the most mature, most reliable, arguably the fastest is... Wait for it... From the company that everyone loves to hate...

Is NSS from Novell. It has more posix features then all of the rest of them, it is insanely fast, it provides undelete and complete repeatability and Novell has open sourced it. Nuff said.

Re:YASF (c) forver by me (2)

flux (5274) | about 3 months ago | (#47030131)

Not sure if trolling.. but I looked it up, and on the paper it seems interesting, but for use today it has limitations: 2 TB maximum device size, 8 TB maximum volume size. So that's a non-contender. Seems quite advanced for its day, though (introduced 1998).

Re:YASF (c) forver by me (1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 3 months ago | (#47030213)

Nope, not trolling..

Since it is open source and has all those goodies it would seem to me that increasing the volume size capabilities would not be nearly as tall an order as starting over from scratch.

Re:YASF (c) forver by me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47030299)

> YASF or Yet Another File System.

Woldn't that be "Yet Another Sile Fystem"? Or something?

Look: I don't know who this Flying Guy is nor what he has done for me recently. But Daniel Philips... this is an awesomely smart guy, and friendly and all. And he has contributed to free software which I use every day.

Now imagine how much weight your rant has in my eyes. This might be a view shared by many.

sNig6a (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47028845)

task. Re53arch

FS for fanboys....meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47029385)

So those of use who work for a living, you use what is supported by your vendor. Shocking! So guess what I run, whatever is shipped with RedHat.

BTW, I have never run an X desktop on any server in production. I just need a decent SSH client. The desktop wars amuse me.

Too little, too late. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47029881)

Hmm ... Is it relevant at all?

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>