Btrfs support
FedoraForum.org - Fedora Support Forums and Community
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Montreal, Que, Canada
    Posts
    6,158
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Btrfs support

    I find this interface to be pretty good. It has features that are impressive. I like the snapshot rollback ability, that I miss with Fedora.

    For RedHat to not support it or handle it well, tells me that there is something wrong with it or that the reason is competition.
    SUSE, the European company swears by it. SUSE is a direct strong competitor to RH.

    I find btrfs better than ext4 or lvm. The ZFS file mgt interface is coming to UBUNTU. Is ZFS better than btrfs?

    Is that why RH is holding back?
    Leslie in Montreal

    Interesting web sites list
    http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showth...40#post1697840

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Btrfs support

    Well, I don't know nothing about zfs. The zfs filesystem won't make its way into the Linux kernel because of its license.

    The btrfs stuff is there, and nothing hinders you from using it in Fedora. Nobody will remove the filesystem from the kernel. The userspace tools btrfs-progs have got at least on upgrade in Fedora 30. So they are working on packaging. dnf has a plugin for snapper, but programs relying on PackageKit have not.
    https://github.com/rpm-software-mana...dnf/issues/313

    I use btrfs since Fedora 24 or so with a predefined set of subvolumes like openSUSE. My backup script creates regular snapshots, and at least once I had to resort to snapper rollback.
    grub2 and os-prober from other distros don't find the Fedora kernels. So I have to create the stanza for booting manually in /etc/grub.d/40_custom.

    Furthermore, openSUSE does not recommend using btrfs for /home. I won't use btrfs for database files, Virtual Machines or docker containers. These have particular optimizations that may not combine with btrfs COW (Copy-on-Write).

    Best regards,
    Bequimão

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Posts
    7,663
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Btrfs support

    > The zfs filesystem won't make its way into the Linux kernel because of its license.

    Not being in the kernel doesn't mean it can't be used, There is zfsonlinux which you compile on the host as far as the module. You can even set up the zfs module with an akmod so it rebuilds the zfs module at boot when a kernel update happens.
    The license issue just means you can't preroll zfs into a distro out of the box.
    Last edited by marko; 11th August 2019 at 10:41 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    bash shell
    Posts
    71
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Btrfs support

    From what little I know, btrfs is a competitor that RedHat does not want to support in their systems, thus it was cancelled for future RHEL releases (based on the RHEL 7 release notes). I am not sure if they changed their mind in RHEL 8 or future Fedora releases.

    Personally, I use XFS everywhere, because I find it very resilient.

    Instead of using snapshots that come with certain overhead, I prefer to have live backups across different systems. My first line of defense is RAID 1 (mirror), then I use rsync via a cron job to sync /home to a remote system, every 30 minutes or so. Rsync is very efficient: compressing the content, encrypting the connection over SSH and only moving modified data.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Btrfs support

    @ lsatenstein: LVM (Logical Volume Manager) is not a filesystem. It is like a virtual partition table. You may use btrfs and LVM together. It is discussed elsewhere in the forum.

    @ fedup4ever: rsync as online backup tool?? Nope, it is not equivalent to btrfs send/receive. Where is the consistency? Besides if rsync is fast, btrfs send/receive is faster with incremental backups.
    Raid 1 has a tremendous (doubled) overhead, and my noteboot has only one slot. I did not use the raid capability of btrfs yet.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    bash shell
    Posts
    71
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Btrfs support

    rsync can be anything I like, even an online backup tool. Works like a charm!

    the best thing, is that it has minimal requirements and works across systems, from FreeBSD, to Synology, to CentOS and to Fedora. Simple, easy and reliable.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Btrfs support

    But you don't need to use LVM with btrfs. Both are volume managers.

    I've been using btrfs for years. It has been reliable for me. And the developers are improving it every day, plus major leaps with each new major kernel release.

Similar Threads

  1. ZFS is the way to go. Sorry btrfs.
    By lsatenstein in forum Using Fedora
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 19th November 2014, 11:08 PM
  2. Does a BTRFS Drive Need a BTRFS Backup Drive?
    By joncr in forum Using Fedora
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 15th February 2014, 09:32 PM
  3. F19: Can't mount btrfs file system - dmsg='btrfs: superblock checksum mismatch'
    By mmmmm in forum Guides & Solutions (Not For Questions)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18th September 2013, 10:29 PM
  4. btrfs with or without lvm?
    By chrismurphy in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16th February 2012, 09:17 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 4th July 2011, 01:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •