On 9/16/13 7:31 AM, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
Am 16.09.2013 13:29, schrieb Guido Berhoerster:
- Frederic Crozat <fcrozat@suse.com> [2013-09-16 13:21]:
Le lundi 16 septembre 2013 à 13:15 +0200, Raymond Wooninck a écrit :
Hi Steohan,
On Monday 16 September 2013 12:05:21 Stephan Kulow wrote:
The last btrfs bugs have shown that we just have too little coverage of btrfs. As using btrfs is a very prominent option - and hopefully our future default file system, we had some discussion how can we improve that in the remaining time frame.
What would be the benefits of having btrfs instead of ext4 ? I have been looking on the internet for comparison details and with kernel 4.11 it seems that ext4 is still the faster filesystem compared to btrfs ? So what would be the benefit for the average user ?
I am not disputing the decision, but I would like to know what the benefits would be (if there are any)
This has been discussed a lot already on the mailing list, one of the main benefits would be snapshot support (thanks to snapper), IMHO.
The benefits in terms of features are obvious, what I would find interesting would be a performance comparison for some common usage scenarios.
I've installed 13.1 milestones using btrfs as root some weeks ago on VirtualBox. The system is slow like hell and I haven't found yet why. Could that be btrfs on virtualized environments? I've heard that it's not playing nice in those.
It plays fine as a guest in virtualized environments. The "problems" usually crop up when using btrfs to host the VM images. That's due to copy-on-write occurring on every write. You can disable the copy-on-write for data on that file by using "chattr -C". It's safe and will do the right thing WRT snapshots of the file. -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs