On 27/02/17 10:29 AM, Richard Brown wrote:
To be blunt-
Anton, if you think that fsck is the only tool you need to performance maintenance of btrfs or any other filesystem, then you are a bloody idiot
"Only"? No, no way. but then I'm quite experienced and can probably make use of a bit-level editor if I have to. I'm also well aware of the tools to work with not just BtrFS but XFS and the ext-family. But before you go much further, knowing how to use a tool to repair something and knowing to the create it in the first pace are two different things. My car mechanic can fix my car but he can't mine ore, make steel, make plastic, make semiconductors, etc etc. Don't ask me to code a FS or contribute code or patches. A lot of the time I can't even wolf-fence a bug well enough to consistently reproduce it for a detailed bug report. But that's all quite beside the point. As I've pointed out there is a need for Industrial Grade things in a high end commercial setting. There's a gap between, even for Microsoft, between the home user and what is needed in a bank or brokerage. And I've spent a great deal of my working life with Big Iron and with AIX and HP/UX in banks. Joe-sixpack, your grandmother, high-school students and the like can't afford that kind of computing. Never mind that we're on the verge of computing technology that can put yesterdays supercomputer in your cellphone tomorrow. Mass production and commercial marketing means there is always going to be a gap. These 'consumers' need something that 'just works', they can't afford the time out for the training and experience that people like Thee&Mee and Carlos have. This thread began with a regular user who just expected his system to work ... and it didn't. Already Carlos has pointed out that even he is unwilling to do what I've done and experiment and push limits and break the system just to see what you can do with it. What can you expect of the grandmothers? You are calling me the 'bloody idiot' when I'm one of the people who do take things apart to see how they work, try alternatives. I've just not a coder. Berate me, but I'm saying this as a 'proxy' for the people who don't have out experience and skills and just wants a system that works. Its doable: my cell phone 'just works'. Well most of the time :-) But a system that's geared for the kind of reliable operation in the context of bank (etc) with trained sysadmins (BTDT, was on 24/7 with a pager etc) is different from a home PC. Microsoft were well aware of this. You go on about the tools and features of BtrFS as if you were selling it. That's fine, tell them to the VPIT & his Chosen Ones like the guys at SUSE do in their marketing presentations. I've seen them. They say the same kind of thing, have it well scripted, along with a power-point presentation. There's a similar one for developers. But its irrelevant to the Joe-Sixpack and the grandmothers, its jut hi-tech bafflegab to them. Oh, I'm sure they believe you when you say that its and advantage. But they don't have the skills, experience, technical education and training that the Likes of Thee&Mee&Carlos have to be able to make use of these tools, the decide which is appropriate in what context as we can. This is not the 'damning indictment' of BtrFS that you seem to think I'm making. I've said before and I'll keep saying, "Context is Everything". There are a whole pile of contexts for which BtrFS, snapper, makes a lot of sense and is eminently the right choice. And for many individuals, and I refer to the OP of this thread as one, for which it is not. There's very little in this world that is "one size fits all". Part of what Linux offers, ha always offered, is 'choice'. As Larry Wall pointed out, there's always another way to do it, and that other way be more suitable in a specific context. All that being said, I'm in a similar situation to Carlos. I started using BtrFS in the early days, had problems with some earlier bugs that are now fixed. I've met and tried all those tools you go on about, Richard. I have no complaints about BtrFS as BtrFS. I just don't think it should be a default for home systems but rather offered as a choice just as ReiserFS, NilFS2 and others are FOR SUITABLE CONTEXT AND PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THEIR CONTEXTUAL BENEFITS. One example of this is something that is important to me: dynamic provisioning. ReiserFS has it. XFS has it. BtrFS has it. Ext4 does not. So, guess which file systems I use and which I don't. If, perhaps, a hypothetical ext5 extends the B-tree mechanisms of ext4 to get away from the fixed allocation of inode blocks vs data blocks that has been around since UNIX v6 and before then I might experiment with that and if it turns out to be reliable replace my ReiserFS with that. BIG MAYBE, eh? -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org