Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #207386 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-04-12 17:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2019-04-17 12:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 32 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2019-04-12 17:00 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-04-12 18:50 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2019-04-12 19:20 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-04-12 23:40 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-04-13 00:10 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2019-04-12 20:30 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-04-13 00:10 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Default User <hunguponcontent@gmail.com> - 2019-04-13 02:30 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Thomas D Dial <tdial@acm.org> - 2019-04-13 00:10 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-04-13 10:10 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-04-13 15:30 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-04-12 23:40 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> - 2019-04-13 17:40 +0200
Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-04-13 19:10 +0200
Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-04-13 23:20 +0200
Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) Peter Wiersig <peter@friesenpeter.de> - 2019-04-14 02:40 +0200
Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) Peter Wiersig <peter@friesenpeter.de> - 2019-04-14 02:50 +0200
Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) Matthew Crews <mailinglists@mattcrews.com> - 2019-04-14 03:00 +0200
Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) Peter Wiersig <peter@friesenpeter.de> - 2019-04-14 15:10 +0200
Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2019-04-15 01:10 +0200
Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) Peter Wiersig <peter@friesenpeter.de> - 2019-04-15 05:20 +0200
Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> - 2019-04-14 10:30 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-04-15 16:30 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-04-15 19:40 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-04-16 10:20 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2019-04-16 21:30 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> - 2019-04-13 17:50 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-04-15 16:40 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> - 2019-04-15 16:40 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2019-04-16 20:40 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2019-04-16 22:00 +0200
Re: New laptop: need advice on choice of file system types Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-04-17 12:40 +0200
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Peter Wiersig <peter@friesenpeter.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-15 05:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) |
| Message-ID | <xN0k1-6V4-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207449 |
Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> writes: > Peter Wiersig wrote: > > ZFS is now in two incompatible versions: Oracle's, and ZFSonLinux, > which is now effectively the parent for all the other efforts including > FreeBSD's ZFS. The biggest problem is the incompatible license which makes the code untouchable. How Oracle is able to distribute a Linux kernel with ZFS support without either releasing the whole thing under a GPL compatible license or violating the kernel GPL is a miracle I didn't found the time or need to investigate. I consider ZFS a poisoned gift from Oracle to the Linux community and will not be surprised when they go for one vendor, on their whim. If they wanted to, they could release their code under a compatible license. My knowledge on the whole affair is bit vague as I had no real interest past reading LWN or cks articles on ZFS, and I noted the problems around the CDDL once Illumos was released. I understand from cks that the real development nowadays happens on ZFSonLinux as the other OSes were stopped in development, but I would not touch that patch on the future prospect on a lawsuit analog to the SCO one. from https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/FAQ#licensing """Licensing ZFS is licensed under the Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), and the Linux kernel is licensed under the GNU General Public License Version 2 (GPLv2). While both are free open source licenses they are restrictive licenses. The combination of them causes problems because it prevents using pieces of code exclusively available under one license with pieces of code exclusively available under the other in the same binary. In the case of the kernel, this prevents us from distributing ZFS on Linux as part of the kernel binary. However, there is nothing in either license that prevents distributing it in the form of a binary module or in the form of source code.""" Peter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-14 10:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: BTRFS snapshot space consumption (was: New laptop: need advice on choice...) |
| Message-ID | <xMIGt-4ss-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207430 |
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 7:08 PM Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> wrote: > > Anders Andersson composed on 2019-04-13 17:31 (UTC+0200): > > > Felix Miata wrote: > > >> Because of its snapshotting, BTRFS requires considerably more space than older > >> filesystems, as much as double. > > > A btrfs snapshot takes approximately zero space. Where did you get > > this idea from? > > (not an exhaustive list) > > 1: "Disk Space Full Because of Snapper" on https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:BTRFS > > 2: Since 2015, BTRFS has been the default / filesystem on openSUSE, which > recommends minimum / filesystem size of 20GB for EXT4, compared to 40GB for BTRFS. > > 3: Much more common / filesystem freespace exhausted threads on mailing lists and > web forums from BTRFS users compared to EXT4 users, with the usual recommendation > to delete one or more snapshots to free space. > > 4: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Help.21_I_ran_out_of_disk_space.21 > > 5: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Why_is_free_space_so_complicated.3F > > 6: > https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-containers-122/docker-on-btrfs-using-much-space-in-var-lib-docker-btrfs-4175622037/#post5811463 Of course you will run out of space if you keep taking snapshots! Btrfs never does this, but you can do it *manually* or with third-party tools. When you take a snapshot, btrfs will keep everything until it's deleted. That's why everyone says that if you run out of space, you can delete snapshots. If the advise to the user is to delete a snapshot, it is something that the user did *because* they wanted to retain those files. The "Snapper" user has *installed* a tool that takes snapshots all the time - obviously you will run out of space because every file you modify or delete will still be stored in its original version until you remove the snapshot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-15 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xNaMp-4Og-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207406 |
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 05:36:00PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: >LVM's extra layer(s) would render my backup/restore system that depends in large >part on cloning useless. I don't quite understand this, would you care to elaborate? Thanks! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-15 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xNdKi-6BZ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207497 |
Jonathan Dowland composed on 2019-04-15 10:28 (UTC-0400): > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 05:36:00PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: >>LVM's extra layer(s) would render my backup/restore system that depends in large >>part on cloning useless. > I don't quite understand this, would you care to elaborate? Thanks! My system's inception dates back more than two decades, before I ever installed Linux, before I became conscious of FOSS. I began then using cross-platform DFSee exclusively as my partitioner and IBM Boot Manager manager when its only binaries were DOS, OS/2 & Windows. Later were added Linux, then MacOS. Both DFSee and IBM BM use the last sector on the first track for data storage, including useful cataloging data. Even when not having IBM BM installed, its data sector is (optionally) used by DFSee, by me, always. As DFSee evolved, so did my system, and PC collection. Portions of DFSee's automatic logging double as my inventory system for dozens of multi- multiboot PCs, some with upwards of 30 operating systems. DFSee is a lot of things, but GNU LVM manager from an OS/2 or floppy boot isn't one of them. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-16 10:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xNrtT-6Qe-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207518 |
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:38:12PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > Both DFSee and IBM >BM use the last sector on the first track for data storage, including useful >cataloging data. Even when not having IBM BM installed, its data sector is >(optionally) used by DFSee, by me, always. So I gather that you believe DFSee (or some functionality of DFSee that you rely upon) is incompatible with LVM. But I didn't understand this particular point about the last sector on the first track… is that a region of a physical drive prior to the first physical partition (assuming an MBR partitioning scheme)? This alone would not prevent you using LVM, which one would typically layer on top of traditional partitions. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-16 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xNBWh-4Ph-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207540 |
Jonathan Dowland composed on 2019-04-16 09:17 (UTC+0100): > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 01:38:12PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote: >> Both DFSee and IBM >>BM use the last sector on the first track for data storage, including useful >>cataloging data. Even when not having IBM BM installed, its data sector is >>(optionally) used by DFSee, by me, always. > So I gather that you believe DFSee (or some functionality of DFSee that you > rely upon) is incompatible with LVM. >From it's logging I have filesystem/operating system inventory that facilitates clone, backup, restore, move, etc., all available wherever a disk happens to be accessible, without requiring mounting anything or support for any particular filesystem: http://fm.no-ip.com/Tmp/Dfsee/gb250L07.txt http://fm.no-ip.com/Tmp/Dfsee/p5bseL05.txt I can't imagine that Gnu LVM wouldn't escalate complications of the complicated environment that multiboot is. > But I didn't understand this particular > point about the last sector on the first track… is that a region of a physical > drive prior to the first physical partition (assuming an MBR partitioning > scheme)? Typically it's either LBA sector 0x1F or 0x3E. > This alone would not prevent you using LVM, which one would typically > layer on top of traditional partitions. That sector contains information not available elsewhere, originally intended for constructing IBM BM's boot menu and functionality, with OS/2 LVM data later added. It wouldn't prevent using Gnu LVM, but neither could it assist with cataloging of Gnu LVM content. Gnu LVM would be an extra layer only accessible via Linux tools, entirely outside the scope of what works for me now. All this disregards the issue of LVM's physical discontinuity when sector level rescue operations are indicated by the gap between failure and most recent backup. This alone would keep me from considering its addition here. I'm well beyond a point in time when any change in routine could be considered anything but hostile. I strongly resist fixing what ain't broke. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anders Andersson <pipatron@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-13 17:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xMt4J-2Zj-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207386 |
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 4:51 PM Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have used ext4 for many years while I have been watching zfs and > btrfs being developed. I am now considering using one or both on at > least one partion during my upcoming new Debian installation. > > Can anyone recommend either one for a normal (non-developer, > non-hobbyiest) user who does backups and values his data and wants > reasonable reliability? I've used btrfs on every machine for a many years, and I'm very happy with it. Run it on my server with various disks, desktop, and laptop. It has saved my data from silent corruption due to bad hardware where ext4 would just return bad data, and it's a breeze to take very quick backups thanks to the snapshot and btrfs-send functions. You just have to learn the new tools. I've replaced disks more or less live on my sever and it works well. I'm not going to play with hacking in a non-native filesystem. ZFS is great if you run FreeBSD, but I run debian main and prefer not to support contrib and non-free.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-15 16:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xNaW5-4RD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207386 |
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 09:50:23AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote: >I have used ext4 for many years while I have been watching zfs and >btrfs being developed. I am now considering using one or both on at >least one partion during my upcoming new Debian installation. What in particular do you find attractive about them? >Can anyone recommend either one for a normal (non-developer, >non-hobbyiest) user who does backups and values his data and wants >reasonable reliability? Ext4 on top of LVM. If you want to play around with new tech then I'd give ZFS on Linux a try, but if you just want your machine to work stick to what you know. I'd avoid BTRFS entirely unless you are an aspiring BTRFS developer. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-15 16:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xNaW6-4RD-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207386 |
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 9:50 AM Tom Browder <tom.browder@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have used ext4 for many years while I have been watching zfs and ... Thanks to all who have given me advice on selecting the file system for a new laptop. After considering all suggestions and my use of the laptop, I have decided to use the Deb installer and select LVM during the clean installation, and accept the FS default (I assume it will be ext4, but if not, I will select it). Warm regards, and many thanks, to all. -Tom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-16 20:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xNB9U-4hN-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207500 |
Le 15/04/2019 à 16:38, Tom Browder a écrit : > > I have decided to use the Deb installer and select LVM during > the clean installation, and accept the FS default (I assume it will be > ext4, but if not, I will select it). If you intend to use guided partitioning on the whole disk, I repeat that LVM is worthless unless you plan to add disks in the future. If you intend to use manual partitioning, there is no default filesystem type.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-16 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xNCpk-4ZA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207580 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Quoting Pascal Hambourg (2019-04-16 20:39:25) > Le 15/04/2019 à 16:38, Tom Browder a écrit : > > > > I have decided to use the Deb installer and select LVM during > > the clean installation, and accept the FS default (I assume it will be > > ext4, but if not, I will select it). > > If you intend to use guided partitioning on the whole disk, I repeat > that LVM is worthless unless you plan to add disks in the future. It is true that debian-installer currently by default uses up all space, but LVM allows you to adjust space allocation later - if only you chose a partitioning layout with multiple partitions: Log in as root (without being logged in as regular user, so that /home is not actively used), and run something like this: lvreduce --resizefs --size 5G /dev/myhost/home - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-04-17 12:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <xNQ8V-5cX-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #207580 |
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 08:39:25PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >If you intend to use guided partitioning on the whole disk, I repeat >that LVM is worthless unless you plan to add disks in the future. I'd agree that It's utility is very much diminished by d-i allocating the entire VG with its guided schemes.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web