/boot on btrfs

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

/boot on btrfs

Gour
Hello,

I plan to put Fedora very soon on my desktop machine to replace Debian,
but noticed that /boot on btrfs is not supported although, iirc, I was
using the same setup under both openSUSE and Debian when using btrfs.

At the moment I do use xfs/raid1, but considering to switch (back) to
btrfs since simplifies setup having features of both lvm+raid.

However, the need for separate /boot makes is a little cummbersome…there
is one issue in regard:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198 so wonder if there is
possibility to have support for /boot on btrfs in f25?


Sincerely,
Gour

--
A self-realized man has no purpose to fulfill in the discharge
of his prescribed duties, nor has he any reason not to perform
such work. Nor has he any need to depend on any other living being.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Rick Stevens-4
On 11/04/2016 07:01 AM, Saša Janiška wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I plan to put Fedora very soon on my desktop machine to replace Debian,
> but noticed that /boot on btrfs is not supported although, iirc, I was
> using the same setup under both openSUSE and Debian when using btrfs.
>
> At the moment I do use xfs/raid1, but considering to switch (back) to
> btrfs since simplifies setup having features of both lvm+raid.
>
> However, the need for separate /boot makes is a little cummbersome…there
> is one issue in regard:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198 so wonder if there is
> possibility to have support for /boot on btrfs in f25?

This list is aimed at current (and past) Fedora releases. While F25 is
very near release right now, it hasn't been released yet. Your question
would be better suited for the fedora developer list:

        [hidden email]

They could probably help more over there. That being said, I don't
think btrfs on /boot is part of the plan for F25, although I could be
wrong on that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital    [hidden email] -
- AIM/Skype: therps2        ICQ: 226437340           Yahoo: origrps2 -
-                                                                    -
-    "Hello. My PID is Inigo Montoya.  You `kill -9'-ed my parent    -
-                     process.  Prepare to vi."                      -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Gour
Rick Stevens <[hidden email]> writes:

> They could probably help more over there. That being said, I don't
> think btrfs on /boot is part of the plan for F25, although I could be
> wrong on that.

OK. I sill installed f25 with btrfs and separate /boot (raid1 setup). ;)


Sincerely,
Gour

--
One must deliver himself with the help of his mind, and not
degrade himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul,
and his enemy as well.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Fernando Cassia-2
In reply to this post by Gour

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Saša Janiška <[hidden email]> wrote:
At the moment I do use xfs/raid1, but considering to switch (back) to
btrfs since simplifies setup having features of both lvm+raid.

Fedora/RedHat's stance on btfs is "passive agressive" (Not Invented Here Syndrome). 

I suggest you use SUSE or OpenSUSE where BTRFS is a first class citizen since 2009.

Dec 2012: SUSE says btrfs is ready to rock

Facebook will soon roll out btfs on production systems

Dec 2014: With btrfs the default on OpenSUSE will other distros follow suit?

"Snapper, the excellent Btrfs management tool, is yet another of SUSE Linux's best-kept secrets"
https://www.linux.com/news/snapper-suses-ultimate-btrfs-snapshot-manager

Don't get me wrong, there are many things to like about RedHat/Fedora, but BTRFS support is not one of them.

FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Fernando Cassia-2

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]> wrote:
since 2009.

sorry, that should have read 2012. :)

FC


--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Matthew Miller-2
In reply to this post by Fernando Cassia-2
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:30:54PM -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> Fedora/RedHat's stance on btfs is "passive agressive" (Not Invented Here
> Syndrome).

That's absolutely not true. Fedora has wanted to use Btfs since... one
of the Boston FUDCons in 2008 or 2009. It's just never been ready,
which is something we know because we kept asking the upstream devs and
they kept saying "not yet, please", until they finally said "look,
please stop asking".

Meanwhile RHEL (and Fedora Server) use XFS, which was *definitely* not
invented at Red Hat or by Fedora.


> Don't get me wrong, there are many things to like about RedHat/Fedora, but
> BTRFS support is not one of them.

While I definitely disagree with your characterization above, this I
do agree with.

--
Matthew Miller
<[hidden email]>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Andre Robatino-2
> That's absolutely not true. Fedora has wanted to use Btfs since... one
> of the Boston FUDCons in 2008 or 2009. It's just never been ready,
> which is something we know because we kept asking the upstream devs and
> they kept saying "not yet, please", until they finally said "look,
> please stop asking".

Why was it considered ready for OpenSUSE? Did they settle for using a stripped-down version (features disabled)?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: /boot on btrfs

J.Witvliet
In reply to this post by Matthew Miller-2


-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Robatino [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: dinsdag 8 november 2016 9:54
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: /boot on btrfs

> That's absolutely not true. Fedora has wanted to use Btfs since... one
> of the Boston FUDCons in 2008 or 2009. It's just never been ready,
> which is something we know because we kept asking the upstream devs
> and they kept saying "not yet, please", until they finally said "look,
> please stop asking".

Why was it considered ready for OpenSUSE? Did they settle for using a stripped-down version (features disabled)?

Yes, they use a stripped-down version of btrfs for quite a while (It was for certain in openSUSE_12.2, release date 5 Sep 2012)

_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email] To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]

Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.

This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Gour
In reply to this post by Matthew Miller-2
Matthew Miller <[hidden email]> writes:

> That's absolutely not true. Fedora has wanted to use Btfs since... one
> of the Boston FUDCons in 2008 or 2009. It's just never been ready,
> which is something we know because we kept asking the upstream devs and
> they kept saying "not yet, please", until they finally said "look,
> please stop asking".

:-)

> While I definitely disagree with your characterization above, this I
> do agree with.

Well, I did try btrfs on openSUSE ~1yr ago with 13.2 and then with
Tumbleweed and although using snapper for supposedly easy-rollback after
broken update, I had experience that update to GNOME did break my
desktop and was not able to recover it despite having several snapshots
which finally led me (back) to Debian.

With Debian (Sid), however, isntaller cannot cope with btrfs for
anyhting more than basic hard disk layouts…in my case I wanted to do
btrfs/raid1 using subvolumes for @root and @home - something which
Anaconda did very well, so from my experience I’d say that Fedora’s
support is superb. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour

--
He who is satisfied with gain which comes of its own accord, who
is free from duality and does not envy, who is steady in both
success and failure, is never entangled, although performing actions.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Fernando Cassia-2
In reply to this post by Matthew Miller-2

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Matthew Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's absolutely not true. Fedora has wanted to use Btfs since... one
of the Boston FUDCons in 2008 or 2009

Well, we disagree.

FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Mark Haney-6
I've been told repeatedly that BTRFS isn't production ready.  I've used it here on a handful of servers and had nothing but trouble with it, stability-wise.  I sure as hell wouldn't use it on /boot if I can't trust it for /home or /.  


On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Matthew Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's absolutely not true. Fedora has wanted to use Btfs since... one
of the Boston FUDCons in 2008 or 2009

Well, we disagree.

FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]




--

Mark Haney ::: Senior Systems Engineer

VIF International Education
P.O. Box 3566 ::: Chapel Hill, N.C. 27515 ::: USA
919-265-5006 office

Global learning for all.
www.viflearn.com
Find VIF on Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn

Recognized as a ‘Best for the World’ B Corp!


_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Fernando Cassia-2
On 11/8/16, Mark Haney <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've been told repeatedly that BTRFS isn't production ready.  I've used it
> here on a handful of servers and had nothing but trouble with it,
> stability-wise.  I sure as hell wouldn't use it on /boot if I can't trust
> it for /home or /.

Name me one piece of software that is totally bug-free. H*ck, IBM's
JFS ate my data on OS/2 one day, on a "stable" piece of software.
Thanks to still-undiscovered APAR ...

http://comp.os.os2.bugs.narkive.com/ypcAmVsk/xr-c005-is-out
APAR=PJ29386 JFS_WRITE CAUSES TRAP 0003 DURING A DIRECTORY WRITE
APAR=PJ29609 EXCEPTION IN MODULE JFS - TRAP 0003 IN ***@4
ALSO FIXES SEVERAL HANG PROBLEMS
APAR=PJ29664 TRAP IN JFS FS32_OPENCREATE WHEN OPENING A FILE WITH
FILENAME THAT CONTAINS A WILDCARD.

JFS had its own share of issues on AIX, too
http://pages.citebite.com/u5o6e0o7trmi

That's what FUD is about, anyway. Repeat gossip in order to stop more
people to install a given piece of software, which in turn would have
helped to identify potential bugs and have them fixed faster. Aka "the
self-fulfilling prophecy".

But hey, Google must be full of dumb people...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DplcPrQjvA
http://marc.merlins.org/linux/talks/2015/Btrfs-LCA2015/Btrfs.pdf

Anyway... I've been told repeatedly that btrfs causes cpu overheating,
exhausts batteries and kills puppies.
FC
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Andras Simon
2016-11-08 19:00 GMT+01:00, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]>:

> Name me one piece of software that is totally bug-free. H*ck, IBM's
> JFS ate my data on OS/2 one day, on a "stable" piece of software.

I know nothing about btrfs. But I do know that there's a difference
between a piece of software "not being bug-free" and the upstream
devs saying it's not yet ready. See Matthew's post upthread.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Mark Haney-6
In reply to this post by Fernando Cassia-2
Did I say ANYTHING about it being bug-free?  No.  Maybe you should read the bloody post before you go spewing that diarrhea out of your mouth.  

I said that BTRFS was NOT PRODUCTION READY.  (Is that big enough text for you?)

I swear, these mailing lists are degenerating to the point of being nearly useless.  

However, if you don't want to take the Fedora/RH/CentOS engineer's word that BTRFS isn't production ready and you barf a production system, don't say you weren't warned. 

On a side note, it's half-wit cretins like you that run people off Linux, even now.  I'm sure you think trying the "I'm smarter than you" bullying works on your friends, but that crap doesn't fly with me little man.


On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Fernando Cassia <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/8/16, Mark Haney <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've been told repeatedly that BTRFS isn't production ready.  I've used it
> here on a handful of servers and had nothing but trouble with it,
> stability-wise.  I sure as hell wouldn't use it on /boot if I can't trust
> it for /home or /.

Name me one piece of software that is totally bug-free. H*ck, IBM's
JFS ate my data on OS/2 one day, on a "stable" piece of software.
Thanks to still-undiscovered APAR ...

http://comp.os.os2.bugs.narkive.com/ypcAmVsk/xr-c005-is-out
APAR=PJ29386 JFS_WRITE CAUSES TRAP 0003 DURING A DIRECTORY WRITE
APAR=PJ29609 EXCEPTION IN MODULE JFS - TRAP 0003 IN ***@4
ALSO FIXES SEVERAL HANG PROBLEMS
APAR=PJ29664 TRAP IN JFS FS32_OPENCREATE WHEN OPENING A FILE WITH
FILENAME THAT CONTAINS A WILDCARD.

JFS had its own share of issues on AIX, too
http://pages.citebite.com/u5o6e0o7trmi

That's what FUD is about, anyway. Repeat gossip in order to stop more
people to install a given piece of software, which in turn would have
helped to identify potential bugs and have them fixed faster. Aka "the
self-fulfilling prophecy".

But hey, Google must be full of dumb people...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DplcPrQjvA
http://marc.merlins.org/linux/talks/2015/Btrfs-LCA2015/Btrfs.pdf

Anyway... I've been told repeatedly that btrfs causes cpu overheating,
exhausts batteries and kills puppies.
FC
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]



--

Mark Haney ::: Senior Systems Engineer

VIF International Education
P.O. Box 3566 ::: Chapel Hill, N.C. 27515 ::: USA
919-265-5006 office

Global learning for all.
www.viflearn.com
Find VIF on Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn

Recognized as a ‘Best for the World’ B Corp!


_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Matthew Miller-2
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 01:44:00PM -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
> Did I say ANYTHING about it being bug-free?  No.  Maybe you should read the
> bloody post before you go spewing that diarrhea out of your mouth.

Hey, maybe time to step back from the email a little bit. This isn't
an acceptable way to talk on Fedora mailing lists.



--
Matthew Miller
<[hidden email]>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Gour
In reply to this post by Matthew Miller-2
Matthew Miller <[hidden email]> writes:

> Meanwhile RHEL (and Fedora Server) use XFS, which was *definitely* not
> invented at Red Hat or by Fedora.

I forgot to create bios_boot partition during my install and ended up
with MBR instead of GPT…so, did re-install and switched (back) to XFS.

Thank you, all, for your your input!


Sincerely,
Gour

--
Even a man of knowledge acts according to his own nature, for
everyone follows the nature he has acquired from the three modes.
What can repression accomplish?
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Chris Murphy

Some of this is a repeat, as this comes up from time to time.

Neither Red Hat nor Fedora currently have Btrfs developers to manage any Btrfs regressions that come up. And as the upstream development is still very busy, there are regressions, and there's every reason to believe Fedora users would get disproportionately impacted because Fedora kernels tend to be very recent.

SUSE is in a sweet spot because they have a bunch of Btrfs developers, and they are running longterm kernels. So it is upstream testers, including Fedora using testers, who hit regressions, get them reported and fixed before they could ever appear in a longterm kernel on any of the SUSE offerings. And because of their strong Btrfs developer presence, they're doing a lot of stable backports.

I think Fedora could soon do Btrfs with single device only. But I think it requires community work to build Btrfs regression tests (these exists already) within Fedora infrastructure, so that every built kernel runs those tests. And then some interpretation is needed to know whether a particular failure is tolerable, users need notification, or the build needs to be failed. The details of this need to be reviewed by the kernel team. Right now they can't do that work themselves, they have plenty on their plate now.

As for stability, it's kinda complicated. Single device Btrfs is stable, unless the device lies about committing to disk when it hasn't, and as it turns out devices do transiently corrupt data. Btrfs is going to give a heads up when that happens, and if it's bad, as in further writes can corrupt the filesystem, it'll go read only. Other filesystems tolerate this condition far longer. What's interesting is both XFS and ext4 now default at mkfs time to checksumming metadata. So they can catch similar problems, just not corruption with actual file data which is a much larger target, and can still cause further system corruption if it goes unchecked.

Anyway, since using it as primary filesystem for roughly  5 years, I've had no problems on single device Btrfs that weren't user induced. On raid1 and raid 10 I have found meaningful bugs and deficient features, that a user can innocently run into, despitere being known and documented. But in those cases, while i lost redundancy, no data was lost or corrupted.

Meanwhile the Btrfs list still fields weird failure in occasion. Steps for repairing Btrfs if it face plants is really non obvious. It's a lot like throwing spaghetti at a wall (even though that's not how you should test your spaghetti people!) Eventually the idea is, kernel code should not f up in the first place even if the device lies, but even if it goes badly, can recover and fix itself without fsck. The fsck is really something of a debugging and time saving tool. Not the ideal scenario. Consider that Btrfs is supposed to scale, and none of the current raid levels scale, and fsck doesn't scale either, nor does scrub, or balance. So Btrfs is going to keep changing and getting better.


--
Chris Murphy

_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: /boot on btrfs

Gour
Chris Murphy <[hidden email]> writes:

> Some of this is a repeat, as this comes up from time to time.

[…]

Thank you for the input - I’m glad I did the right chocue with XFS for
my Raid1 setup. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour

--
Never was there a time when I did not exist,
nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future
shall any of us cease to be.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- [hidden email]
To unsubscribe send an email to [hidden email]