Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I'm not sure if this is any kind of answer for you, but compare not with
far more than say, ext2/3/4, xfs, etc
but Sun's ZFS.
At least they are both driven by the CoW mechanism, and ZFS does do a combined MD/LVM/fs replacement, end-to-end, job. As a result, it seems to be possible for ZFS to do stuff that is beyond the traditional linux file systems, like guaranteeing end-to-end data integrity and simplified disk/array management.
Note one error in the paragraph above is that filesystems themselves don't actually do anything. It is only in combination with the various support utilities that anything is done, so when I wrote "possible for ZFS to do stuff" I don't really mean that at all; I meant "the filesystem in combination with the drivers and support utilities". But still, at least superficially, ZFS is a very impressive piece of work.
Now an interesting, and maybe irrelevant thing: the chief architect for BTRFS, Chris Mason, works for Oracle. And what little morsel has Oracle been buying for themselves? Sun. So, Oracle have been supporting a guy working on providing a ZFS competitor for Linux, whilst buying the original, which they should have the possibility of GPL'ing. I doubt that this has any immediate impact, but you do wonder whether Oracle now regret what they have been spending their money on. Maybe, if you are as minted as Oracle, you never notice the small change that you spent on a top developer doing this stuff.
I disagree - the support tools for a filesystem implemented on a LV are a can of worms. Look at something as simple as resizing. What about removing a PV. What about data integrity ...
Much better to do it in the filesystem itself. Similar to zfs - which Linus won't allow unless the license changes.
Similar to zfs - which Linus won't allow unless the license changes.
True, but you can try out ZFS via FUSE. Don't know what performance impact that has, though.
I don't use BTR yet, but I will be.
Well, I am not prepared to commit to it until I have a better idea of how the performance numbers look (err, confusing is the usual answer), but I expect to avoid ext4 and jump to BTRFS, when the time is right. Although if BTRFS is much delayed in getting out what I consider an adequately stable version, or the perf numbers look worrying, maybe I'll reconsider.