Red Hat drops Btrfs support

>>61687954
What the fuck are they going to use then? ZFS and btrfs are both actively developed by Oracle.
>inb4 Lennart creates a new filesystem that's only useable through systemd wrappers around an unstable moving-target internal API

>>61688035
Red Hat is going back to xfs.

There is another GPL-licensed upcoming file system called bcachefs that does most of what ZFS does.

systemdfs incoming

what's wrong with ext4?

>>61688218
Can't do stuff like pooled storage or RAID-Z nor can it do snapshots.

>>61688240
Why can't you just rsync copies of your database on a nightly basis?

>>61688250
Nobody's putting a gun to your head and making you stop use ext4.

File: 1470885164052.jpg (39KB, 800x477px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x477px

They should adopt APFS.

https://blog.cugu.eu/post/apfs/

It even has optimizations for flash storage.

>>61688269
>It even has optimizations for flash storage.

So is pretty much every other file system introduced after 2010.

Besides, it has the same case-insensitive-by-default problem as with HFS (search for Linus' rant about this), and skimps on checksumming and data integrity features (makes sense since Apple doesn't make servers).

>>61688269
im impressed you had the time to create that shitty image while having a gay gangbang applefaggot

>>61688250
>rsyncing live files
Kek, only works if the database file is append-only. I know of only one database where that would work.

>>61688293
>So is pretty much every other file system introduced after 2010.
All of them are bolted on and not designed from the ground up.

There's a bunch of flash-optimized databases around too.

Why does literally everyone act like ZFS doesn't exist, people seriously waste their time trying to rewrite it and fail time and time again, just adopt ZFS and improve it, don't waste time corrupting people's data when the endgoal is to have something at best on par but still unique (bad because it causes unnecessary tool and documentation fragmentation).

Someone wrote a read-only port for Windows, with that in mind no OS vendor has any excuse, it should run on any *nix system without problems and even be portable to other non Unix-like systems.

>>61688320
it being owned by oracle now is reason enough to act like it was never invented

>>61688319
>All of them are bolted on and not designed from the ground up.

Microsoft ReFS is a completely new design.

bcachefs is a completely new design.

F2FS, which was made by Samsung and used by most new Android phones, is a completely new design specifically designed for consumer device flash storage usage scenario and that scenario only.

>>61688080

bcachefs the only FOSS alternative left for a next gen filesystem that isn't backed by Oracle.

I seriously would consider ZFS if it wasn't for Oracle.

Too bad the guy is basically living off his savings account trying to do this.

https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs

>>61688312
He could be talking about rsync'ing dumbs, you know?

>>61688357
I know a file system dev with a lot of free time, we should make a change.org petition to give him Internet access

>>61688357
Btrfs is developed by Oracle too.

Sure, the code is GPL, but that doesn't protect you from Oracle's patent lawsuits.

>>61688320
muh licences lad

>>61688320
It probably has something to do with Sun inventing a new license for it basically just to piss everyone off and fuck Linux over so it'll never be accepted into the kernel. Running through FUSE has performance implications, maybe legal ones too since Oracle are a bunch of assholes.

>>61687954
Btrfs is crappy, but NSA/RedHat - or, as I recently started to called it, NSA + RedHat - is the second-to-last corporation on the fucking earth whose judgement on the code quality I'd actually trust. The last being Microsoft.

What exactly is wrong with btrfs? I've been using it for some time now and nothings gone wrong.

>>61687954
Design by commie
Vs.
Not designed at all

>>61688466
raid 5/6

>>61688466
Software RAID features are a complete nightmare and little progress has been made since 2009.

Wow I sure do love software patents, they just DRIVE innovation and don't exist to completely fuck up open source.

>>61688250
That might be fine for your wordpress blog, but if you're running an online business and you're making $1,000 per minute, you really don't want to lose 1440 minutes of transactions.

Unless a million and a half dollars worth of business is pocket change to you, in which case why are you on /g/?

Should've funded nilfs2 while you had the chance.

>discovered that bash globs can't into roman numerals properly
>now this
what a terrible day

btrfs is getting kicked out of the kernel when?

On the other hand, SUSE Linux Enterprise 12 is using Btrfs (+ XFS for /home) by default, but this stems mostly from snapshot support built into the package manager.

>>61687954

Red Hat was never interested in btrfs, they push XFS as their enterprise solution, only Linux distribution to really push btrfs is Suse.

There's been rumours that Red Hat is working on a new file system of their own, in turn spawned from them asking their customers about what features they would want to see in a fs.

Anyway, bcachefs looks promising, if it delivers it will be a huge improvement on btrfs.

Meanwhile ZFS is a dead end as it can never be mainlined due to the CDDL license.

>>61687954
Good riddance that piece of shit fs screwed me over both times I tried it.

>>61690423
>ZFS is ded

TOPEST KEK

zfs is the best filesystem now, it's free as in freedom and easily usable by the linux & bsd.

>>61688380
>I know a file system dev with a lot of free time, we should make a change.org petition to give him Internet access
Fucking neo /g/.
How come no one (You)ed that comment yet?

>>61690481
Your joke wasn't funny.

>>61690446

>zfs is the best filesystem now, it's free as in freedom and easily usable by the linux & bsd.

ZFS can never be mainlined, which means it can never be part of the kernel, which means it can never be a default Linux filesystem.

As such it will never be anything but an outlier on Linux, and the Linux version even lags behind in features. It's a dead end.

bcachefs can be mainlined, and if nothing unforeseen happens (like development for some reason stops) it will be, it ticks every feature box of btrfs and ZFS, while being much less of a hog.

>>61690533
Cool, but you missed a few points.

>>zfs is the best filesystem now

>bcachefs
What is vaporware?

Not one to defend red hat but as an xfs user I agree with this, both ext4 and btrfs had worse hardware usage due to randomly scattering data and cow. I'm glad to see xfs being developed more in the future.

>>61690506
It wasn't my joke, but I found it immensely funny.

>I like my girls like my file systems.
>FAT and 16…

>>61690591

>zfs is the best filesystem now

Not for Linux

>What is vaporware?

People are running it right now, though not in production of course, you obviously have no clue what vaporware means.

>Not for Linux
Yep, it's not the best filesystem for Linux, it's the best available filesystem in the world so far.

>People are running it right now, though not in production of course, you obviously have no clue what vaporware means.
Check it's status page almost none of the features you'd expect from a COW a filesystem is working right now.
Stop shilling an unfinished product, that's exactly what happened to the btrfs and it turned out to be shit. Let him finish and start shilling after that.

>>61690717
>>61690808

>>61688380
>>61690481
Oh fuck, had to reread it after your comment. topkek.

>>61690808

>Stop shilling an unfinished product, that's exactly what happened to the btrfs and it turned out to be shit. Let him finish and start shilling after that.

Don't be so pathetic, this is what I wrote:

>bcachefs can be mainlined, and if nothing unforeseen happens (like development for some reason stops) it will be, it ticks every feature box of btrfs and ZFS, while being much less of a hog.

Meanwhile you made bullshit claims about it being vaporware. And the whole reason OpenZFS was so intent on getting it onto Linux was because they know that if it is relegated to only FreeBSD and Solaris offsprings, it's prospects are fucked.

But even with all that effort it will always be a redheaded stepchild on Linux due to CDDL preventing it from being mainlined, and other compatible filesystems will be used in it's stead. Again for Linux, ZFS is a dead end.

>>61688080
Red Hat never left XFS, they've been like the only consistent maintainer of the codebase for years. They've actually refactored the shit out of it and increased it's limits and they're working to bring newer features to it.

>not using OpenZFS
bros...

>not using OpenZFS
bros...

>>61688466
btrfs is from Oracle, which is a major Red Hat competitor.

Red Hat likes to pull this kind of shit with competitors. Basically they only like things they make themselves: systemd instead of upstart/other init, pulseaudio, wayland instead of mir, etc.

>>61687954
>red hat has a problem with btrfs spotty support and development quality
>systemD is fine

>>61688080
This, bcachefs is awesome.

>>61688357
It is also the only FOSS file system whose encryption does not suck.

>>61690533
>ZFS can never be mainlined, which means it can never be part of the kernel
FUSE still exists.

>>61691723

>FUSE still exists.

FUSE is slow as fuck, why do you think OpenZFS spent a ton of effort to port it as a kernel module when you've been able to use it through FUSE for ages ?

>>61691800
>why do you think OpenZFS spent a ton of effort to port it as a kernel module when you've been able to use it through FUSE for ages ?
Because they are tards?

>>61691820

>Because they are tards?

Well ok, I don't have a snappy comeback for that. Well played anon

>>61687954
> Unfortunately, too much code was written too quickly without focusing on getting the core design correct first, and now it has too many design mistakes
> and an enormous, messy codebase
But they didn't drop systemd.

Since this thread is kinda related

I want to use a big nig hard drive mostly as a secondary storage drive. Should I use ext4 or XFS?

>>61687954
Fuck red hat
First systemd and now this

>>61692435
I'd go with XFS, but if it's only for storage it really doesn't matter

>>61691049
>zfs is dead

OSX uses it

>>61692726
Excuse my ignorance, but doesn't it use HFS+ and now APFS?

>all these people who think oracle owns OpenZFS

>all these people who think zfs and OpenZFS are the same thing

>>61692750

you're right Apple turned away from Zfs a couple of years ago.

All sun technologies are getting fucked over.

File: sit-and-spin.jpg (71KB, 438x281px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 438x281px

>>61692561
Agree.

>>61687954
Fucking oracle is everywhere.

File: flat,750x1000,075,t.jpg (71KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 750x1000px

>not using the filesystem of God

>>61688250
>thinking live file copies are anywhere near as good as snapshots
>he's gonna wait a bunch of time every time he wants to make a restore point instead of using instant cow snapshots
nigga please