Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
Jon, can you give a link to more information about this?
Oracle going to btrfs
Posted Oct 11, 2011 19:14 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1)
Posted Oct 11, 2011 19:15 UTC (Tue) by Lovechild (guest, #3592)
Posted Oct 11, 2011 19:29 UTC (Tue) by masoncl (subscriber, #47138)
Btrfs still won't be a good choice for database use, but thankfully the database has a few other ways to get rows and columns down to the storage.
It's worth pointing out that I have a number of slides featuring btrfsck for my linuxcon europe presentation and that Josef Bacik moved forward with a recovery tool that can copy data out of a damaged filesystem.
We're making progress, I'm just slower than I wanted to be.
Posted Oct 12, 2011 19:44 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (subscriber, #755)
The question, Chris, isn't "should btrfs be in production use by now", or even "should btrfs be in production use while it doesn't have a working fsck in the wild".
It's "should people too stupid to breathe be protected from themselves by delaying the release of a tool that might make a bad situation worse"?
While I don't think Libertarianism is a workable political theory on the national scale, growing up on Heinlein has made me lean towards it as a personal philosophy, and I'm inclined towards the arguments made above: in short, that with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
And that anyone dumb enough to trust a development-release filesystem to unbacked up real data of any sort deserves exactly what they get.
The real question is: what percentage of such users will *really* blame the developer -- especially if they had to, for example, go out and get the FS code, instead of just choosing it off an installer screen?
I suspect there are people who think it's higher than I do, but I don't have data.
In any event, we look forward to your patch. :-)
Posted Oct 12, 2011 23:37 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
just look at the horrible reputation that KDE4 got from distros including it too early as an example.
Posted Oct 12, 2011 23:39 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (subscriber, #755)
Perhaps it's actually usable now, but it certainly wasn't, then...
Posted Oct 13, 2011 6:48 UTC (Thu) by niner (subscriber, #26151)
Posted Oct 13, 2011 9:09 UTC (Thu) by malor (subscriber, #2973)
They broke the implied promise of end-user readiness, so I'd say the KDE team fully earned their loss of reputation. All they had to do was release it as 4.0 Alpha, and they'd have been mostly okay. Everyone knows code takes time to stabilize.
Likewise, I think if btrfsk is released as 0.1 alpha, and it warns you that it sucks when you run it, then even if it does eat some babies, it won't be any big deal. And it MIGHT develop faster, although as corbet says, there may not yet be enough expertise in btrfs for anyone but Chris to be very useful working on it.
Posted Oct 13, 2011 10:14 UTC (Thu) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds