Btrfs

Why isn't Btrfs as ubiquitous as SystemDachau?

Doesn't anyone care about their data?

And ZFS is just a corpulent, non-GPL monstrosity.

Attached: 1521753739840.jpg (2000x1500, 428K)

Other urls found in this thread:

stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf
github.com/stratis-storage
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Doesn't anyone care about their data?
We do. It's called backups. No matter how great a filesystem is, backups is the only certain way. So what other reason is there for using Butter/ZFS?

who is this semen demon?

>winshit
tfw no gnu/cunny

Redhat said last year they were not going to offer it any more, but idky.

They are or were one of the developing companies.

Your little sister.

Avoiding bit rot.

I do. That's why I don't use a filesystem that will destroy data on power loss. Btrfs is a mess.

It's the primary filesystem of suse if that means anything.

I want to dress her in cute outfits and spoil her.

check em

Attached: 1528388391302.jpg (240x141, 5K)

Check em?

What do that mean?

9/10
would make most 'oldfags' reply

It means this

Current status:
ZFS has the license conflict, so you have to install separately.
OpenSUSE loves Btrfs (it's the default there), Redhat hates it, and everyone else tolerates it.

Redhat is now attempting to create their own thing called Stratis. I highly recommend reading the whitepaper, particularly the opening background section, as it goes over their goals for the project and what they want to achieve
stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf
The project is on github here
github.com/stratis-storage

Attached: stratis.png (200x200, 14K)

Individual bits can (and do) "flip" for many reasons. It' called bit rot.

With a file system that is not self-correcting, you could just be backing up progressively more defective data.

It really doesn't mean anything

suse is like the european redhat

Huh?

DeadShat has really managed to learn the worst habits of MicroShaft (embrace, extend, extinguish) and Ewwwbuntu (only if we invented it).

Fuck them.

>Individual bits can (and do) "flip" for many reasons. It' called bit rot.
So ECC exists because bit rot? Do you realize how retarded you sound.

It really isn't just because it's German. Most of the Euros i know run either Arch or Slackware, and companies run mostly RHEL

But thanks for the info.

No, I'm too retarded to know.

Please explain to your unworthy subject, my intellectual superior.

Please enlighten us, oh great one.

>Doesn't anyone care about their data?
Yes, that's why we avoid BTRFS, it's literally trash.
So many good ideas, but absolutely -10/1000 implementation.

Every major sever vendor have moved back to XFS since it's 1000000000000% more reliable.

"Working, working . . . "

But . . . is XFS self-correcting?

Nah, there were a few cities that "Went Linux" that were running suse. They backed the fuck out eventually but its not like you can contract overseas for that sort of government work.

Self-erroring.

It's garbage, the volume management is a joke. RAID5/6 still has the write hole, and RAID 10 doesn't actually offer the same redundancy level as a pool of mirrors does on ZFS.

On ZFS n-1 disks from any mirror vdev can fail before you lose the pool. On btrfs RAID 10 if you lose more than one disk you're fucked because all that policy implies is that two copies of a chunk exist somewhere.

It seems like bcachefs is making the same mistake (no real built in volume manager) so ZFS will remain the best open-source filesystem for at least another decade.

Aww he is new
Hello newfriend

>CuckHat Not invented here FS®
Eww no thanks.

Attached: hikari_compressed.png (4000x4000, 2.22M)

I *still* don't understand why a normal braindead end-user like myself should care about anything besides ext4.

Every single filesystem is like "here's some really cool features.......and here's some (fairly big) bugs that we can't fix, which make those cool features seem worthless". Like XFS's date range and volume shrinking bugs, or the myriad of btrfs bugs/instability, etc.

Name and set?