SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
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.
Everyone says BTRFS is unstable? Why do they say that? Could it be because everyone says BTRFS is unstable? You know if you say it enough, even YOU will believe it. But has anyone shown BTRFS to actually be unstable in the latest kernel? Is it reproducible?
When the developers of a filesystem state that it is not stable I tend to believe them. From the help text for BTRFS in the kernel configuration:
Btrfs is highly experimental, and THE DISK FORMAT IS NOT YET FINALIZED. You should say N here unless you are interested in testing Btrfs with non-critical data.
Just got a new SSD for my laptop (the older 40GB SSD simply is to small) and used the chance to give JFS a try on it, hope that works out well, but until now no problems at all.
I might give JFS another try on my next install, but for now EXT4 is doing it's job well enough.
BtrFS is no where near complete, and as I said, it's being developed by Oracle as an open source replacement for their version of Oracle-ZFS for their GNU/Linux distribution, not Open-ZFS sponsored by FreeBSD and Illumos. They're basically having to redo Oracle-ZFS from the ground up as a clean-room implementation without reusing any ZFS code at all.
Speaking of alternative file-systems has anyone ever experimented with Reiser4?
Illumos has been fostering the ZFS developments for a few years now, and a lot of progress has been made recently in FreeBSD, whereas Oracle refuses to share their code via a loophole within the CDDL license.
If OpenZFS could prove and show Illumos controls the main source tree, and Oracle's implementation uses out-of-tree code, the project could easily be re-licensed under something more GPLv2 friendly, like the MIT license. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would at least allow ZFS to finally be imported within Linux.
Of course the original developers would have to sign off on it, but still there is hope.
For now however, we'll have to settle on ZFSOnLinux, and documentation to effectively deploy it within a Linux distribution is very scarce. I think ArchLinux had a wiki on it though.
I just saw from a web search that the XFS developers refuse to add some option like "data=ordered", and say that "if you want to have that behavior in a shell script, write a wrapper of fsync"!
Am completely taken aback. Does it mean if I distribute a shell script, I have also to distribute the fsync wrapper and a compiler in source code?
Bingo. Welcome to the dark ugly imperfect side of GPL.
It's a sad fact that many GPL projects suffer from the fact developers get egotistical, uncaring, or downright lazy and refuse to listen to their users, and say stuff like, "if you want it, learn C++, and add it in yourself, otherwise, piss off".