Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #211231 > unrolled thread

tailf vs buster

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  tailf vs buster Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-11 17:50 +0200
    Re: tailf vs buster Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-11 18:00 +0200
      Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-11 18:00 +0200
        Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-12 10:00 +0200
          Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-12 10:40 +0200
            Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2019-07-12 10:40 +0200
            Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-12 14:50 +0200
              Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-12 15:10 +0200
                Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-07-13 14:30 +0200
                  Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2019-07-14 08:50 +0200

#211231 — tailf vs buster

	Dear list,

This just came to my attention - buster lost "tailf" from "util-linux"
package. I have no problem defining an appropriate alias, of course.
The question is - who should I thank for this?

Reco

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#211234

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:42:27PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> This just came to my attention - buster lost "tailf" from "util-linux"
> package. I have no problem defining an appropriate alias, of course.
> The question is - who should I thank for this?

The stretch man page says:

DESCRIPTION
       tailf is deprecated.  It may have unfixed bugs and will be removed from
       util-linux in March 2017.  Nowadays it's safe  to  use  tail  -f  (from
       coreutils), in contrast to what the original documentation below says.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211235 — Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:49:48AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:42:27PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > This just came to my attention - buster lost "tailf" from "util-linux"
> > package. I have no problem defining an appropriate alias, of course.
> > The question is - who should I thank for this?
> 
> The stretch man page says:
> 
> DESCRIPTION
>        tailf is deprecated.  It may have unfixed bugs and will be removed from
>        util-linux in March 2017.  Nowadays it's safe  to  use  tail  -f  (from
>        coreutils), in contrast to what the original documentation below says.
> 

Thanks. Same manpage:

> The latest inotify-based implementation was written by Karel Zak
> (kzak@redhat.com).

Figures. RedHat deserves whatever IBM will do to them.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211276 — Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:55:43PM +0300, Reco wrote:

[...]

> Figures. RedHat deserves whatever IBM will do to them.

You seem to be unaware of what RedHat has done for all of us.

Cheers
-- tomás

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211279 — Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

	Hi.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:55:03AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:55:43PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Figures. RedHat deserves whatever IBM will do to them.
> 
> You seem to be unaware of what RedHat has done for all of us.

On the contrary. I'm perfectly aware of this.
I don't dispute that RedHat did a lot of good things - good chunks of
the libc, gcc and a kernel itself is wrote by them.
On the other side though we have some really controversial things like
SecureBoot support, Wayland, GTK3, xfs, and s*****d.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211281 — Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> 	Hi.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:55:03AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:55:43PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > Figures. RedHat deserves whatever IBM will do to them.
> > 
> > You seem to be unaware of what RedHat has done for all of us.
> 
> On the contrary. I'm perfectly aware of this.
> I don't dispute that RedHat did a lot of good things - good chunks of
> the libc, gcc and a kernel itself is wrote by them.

Good, thanks then.

> On the other side though we have some really controversial things like
> SecureBoot support, Wayland, GTK3, xfs, and s*****d.

Right. And lots of food for thought on what free software is, what it
means for each of us, whether it has something to do with society,
whether it's compatible with big corps, yadda yadda.

Lots of interesting work ahead :-)

Cheers
-- tomás

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211294 — Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> I don't dispute that RedHat did a lot of good things - good chunks of
> the libc, gcc and a kernel itself is wrote by them.
> On the other side though we have some really controversial things like
> SecureBoot support, Wayland, GTK3, xfs, and s*****d.

XFS was developed by SGI, not by Red Hat.  According to wikipedia:

  Initial support for XFS in the Linux kernel came through patches from
  SGI. It merged into the Linux kernel mainline for the 2.6 series,
  and separately merged in February 2004 into the 2.4 series in
  version 2.4.25,[10] making XFS almost universally available on Linux
  systems.[11] Gentoo Linux became the first Linux distribution to
  introduce an option for XFS as the default filesystem in mid-2002.[12]

There's some stuff about Red Hat in subsequent paragraphs, and it
definitely does not paint a pretty picture of Red Hat.  If wikipedia is
to be believed, Red Hat added partial XFS support 7 years after Gentoo,
and then charged its customers extra money for the basic command line
tools.  (And then possibly stopped being evil a few years after that.
It's a little unclear.)

I'm not sure exactly what you consider "controversial" about XFS.  It's
just a file system that you can choose to use, or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211298 — Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:46:19AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:35:20AM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > I don't dispute that RedHat did a lot of good things - good chunks of
> > the libc, gcc and a kernel itself is wrote by them.
> > On the other side though we have some really controversial things like
> > SecureBoot support, Wayland, GTK3, xfs, and s*****d.
> 
> XFS was developed by SGI, not by Red Hat.

Yet it's their favorite toy now, and have been for at least for the last
decade. And "problematic" does not even start to describe this
particular filesystem as of now.
But I'm an optimist. Give it ten more years and maybe something good
will come out of it.


> There's some stuff about Red Hat in subsequent paragraphs, and it
> definitely does not paint a pretty picture of Red Hat.  If wikipedia is
> to be believed, Red Hat added partial XFS support 7 years after Gentoo,
> and then charged its customers extra money for the basic command line
> tools.  (And then possibly stopped being evil a few years after that.
> It's a little unclear.)

I was not aware of this little tidbit, but it sounds like very thing
RedHat would do.
For me it was enough that they made xfs the default one (some can say
"forced", but note that I didn't say it) and they *knew* that xfs will
lead to data loss if used without battery-backed storage.


> I'm not sure exactly what you consider "controversial" about XFS.  It's
> just a file system that you can choose to use, or not.

Random slowdowns for no good reason. Data loss on power failure. Kernel
panics at xfs-specific parts of the kernel just because.
Saw a lot of such stuff. The solution was the same every time - fsck it
(ambiguity is intentional here), we're moving survived data to ext4.


Now, ext4 is not without its problems too. But it's the scale of such
problems that matters.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211344 — Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 13/07/19 1:02 AM, Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:46:19AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> For me it was enough that they made xfs the default one (some can say
> "forced", but note that I didn't say it) and they *knew* that xfs will
> lead to data loss if used without battery-backed storage.
> 
> 
>> I'm not sure exactly what you consider "controversial" about XFS.  It's
>> just a file system that you can choose to use, or not.
> 
> Random slowdowns for no good reason. Data loss on power failure. Kernel
> panics at xfs-specific parts of the kernel just because.
> Saw a lot of such stuff. The solution was the same every time - fsck it
> (ambiguity is intentional here), we're moving survived data to ext4.

Have you got links to further comments on this issue, by others?

I've been using xfs happily (but not exclusively) for lots  of stuff for
years, but would like to read about problems if they exist.

I think I remember problems early on (maybe 2005ish). And I think I
remember seeing problems when using LVM snapshots under it, but haven't
tried that again since.

Cheers,
Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#211370 — Re: [SOLVED] tailf vs buster

	Hi.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 12:22:38AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote:
> On 13/07/19 1:02 AM, Reco wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:46:19AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 
> > For me it was enough that they made xfs the default one (some can say
> > "forced", but note that I didn't say it) and they *knew* that xfs will
> > lead to data loss if used without battery-backed storage.
> > 
> >> I'm not sure exactly what you consider "controversial" about XFS.  It's
> >> just a file system that you can choose to use, or not.
> > 
> > Random slowdowns for no good reason. Data loss on power failure. Kernel
> > panics at xfs-specific parts of the kernel just because.
> > Saw a lot of such stuff. The solution was the same every time - fsck it
> > (ambiguity is intentional here), we're moving survived data to ext4.
> 
> Have you got links to further comments on this issue, by others?

Not that I seek them, but sure I do have a few:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845233
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1225651
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578354

845233 is my favorite, it took a lot of finger-pointing before we
understood the real reason. All of them are should be fixed by now.
Maybe. Ask Red Hat. And then test it somehow. And then ask Red Hat once
again.
Does it apply to Debian? I don't know as I have a luxury not to use xfs
in Debian.


> I've been using xfs happily (but not exclusively) for lots  of stuff for
> years, but would like to read about problems if they exist.

Ever tried gambling at casino? With your luck you'll win every time.
But seriously, if it works for you - who am I to argue?

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web