Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #289441
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! |
| Date | 2015-04-13 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D1515160.4A10D%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | <mgf4jb$33g$1@dont-email.me> <D1507930.4A073%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <mgge2o$q7f$1@dont-email.me> <D151296C.4A0CE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <mggs5o$ipb$1@dont-email.me> |
On 4/13/15, 9:52 AM, in article mggs5o$ipb$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:
>>> Apple most likely won't ever use it. They might inspire themselves off
>>> of it to make their own filesystem but I just don't see them using an
>>> open-source filesystem, especially since these tend to continuously
>>> evolve and potentially break things along the way.
>>>
>> Well, they would need something that works with Time Machine... unless they
>> kept Time Machine on its current file system for now. As it is they have
>> HFS+ set up a bit differently for it than for the main drive (I think).
>
> I'm not sure why they wouldn't be able to adapt their Time Machine
> hardware and software to be used on an open-source filesystem. Nothing
> is set in stone the way I see it.
They could - but right now Time Machine uses hard linked directories. This
is something that is generally *not* allowed on Linux / UNIX systems but it
makes it so Time Machine can be much more efficient. A good write up of it
is here:
<http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5/14/>
-----
Time Machine goes one step further. Historically, Unix has only
allowed hard links to files. In Leopard, Apple has included the
ability to make hard links to directories. This has not been
allowed in Unix because it can lead to all sorts of very nasty
infinite loops during file look-ups. Of course, symbolic links can
create loops too, but they're a lot easier to detect and prevent
since symbolic links are easily distinguished from normal files.
But as discussed earlier, every file is essentially a hard link,
and all hard links have equal standing in the eyes of the OS,
making loop detection a bit trickier.
Nevertheless, the benefits for Time Machine were substantial
enough for Apple to (carefully) add this ability to Leopard. For
example, if the entire /System directory has not changed since the
last backup, Time Machine just has to make a single hard link to
that directory in the new backup folder. Without support for hard
links to directories, Time Machine would have to create 18,744
directories containing a total of 68,839 hard links to files
(using numbers from my /System directory).
Yes, directories are small and hard links only take up the room
necessary for their directory entries (at minimum, enough to store
the name and a pointer to the data on disk), but those bytes add
up fast when you're talking tens of thousands of hard links being
created every time you want to do a backup. Hard links to
directories make this all much simpler and more efficient.
-----
This capability, as far as I know, does not exist on Linux.
> If Microsoft was able to make its operating systems run on FAT32 as easily as
> on NTFS, I don't see why Apple wouldn't be able to modify something which is
> essentially a lot more trivial.
Apple has done some things which are generally not "legal" on most file
systems - though how hard it would be for them to change these things or to
allow them on these other file systems I do not know.
But, sure, they could. And even if it makes it where they have to make more
links, the speed would likely not be much of an issue because other file
systems are faster. The storage space benefits might not be possible on
other systems though.
I will leave it to Peter to give a detailed explanation of how it could be
done as well on Linux... after all he is the expert. :)
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-12 21:03 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 19:34 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-13 05:21 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-12 21:51 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! taka0038@gmail.com - 2015-04-13 01:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 02:17 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 14:13 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 06:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 15:30 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 10:49 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 16:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 12:58 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 11:59 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:37 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-13 11:54 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 11:58 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:37 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:31 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:18 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 00:32 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:24 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:54 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-14 09:00 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 14:26 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 09:09 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 09:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Charlie Croyden <charlescroyden3@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 06:14 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 09:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 15:58 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 10:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 16:22 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 10:52 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 17:25 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:01 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 12:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:40 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 13:25 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-14 10:30 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 10:57 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 11:44 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 11:55 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 11:56 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 18:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 15:25 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 16:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:21 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 16:38 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 17:49 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 18:36 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 15:39 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 20:19 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 09:55 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 12:14 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 17:41 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 00:50 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-14 20:29 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 19:44 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-15 08:35 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 22:40 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:36 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-14 20:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-15 07:15 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 08:45 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 12:01 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-14 10:19 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 10:28 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 18:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-14 15:21 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 19:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-14 15:27 +0100
Does "Ezekiel" agree? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-14 10:07 -0500
Re: Does "Ezekiel" agree? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-14 11:20 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 12:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 10:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-14 10:02 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 12:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 00:55 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-15 14:14 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-15 17:19 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 09:04 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 23:35 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 19:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 18:00 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 23:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 18:00 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 08:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 14:11 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 10:48 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 16:41 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 12:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 19:25 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:18 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 21:55 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:48 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:26 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 10:50 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:31 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:46 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 18:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:53 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-14 08:51 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 11:56 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 11:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:32 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:45 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 18:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 16:50 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-13 20:15 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 08:51 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 08:06 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 12:52 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 10:56 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 20:45 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 12:07 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 21:43 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 12:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-13 22:08 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 13:34 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 13:31 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 17:35 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 14:43 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 18:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:30 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 00:35 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:39 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-14 00:49 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-13 18:50 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 23:11 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-13 23:08 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 23:37 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-13 17:59 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:40 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 19:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-13 16:43 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-13 13:00 -0400
csiph-web