Comments on: btrfs by default in Maverick?

By: Nano Theme » Btrfs May Be The Default File-System In Ubuntu 10.10 » Nano Theme

Sun, 25 Dec 2011 07:05:48 +0000

[...] Scott James Remnant (Ubuntu’s Development Manager) has published a blog post entitled Btrfs by default in Maverick? In that post Scott describes, “We are going to be doing the work to have btrfs as an [...]

By: Sobre Btrfs « Doculinux

Sobre Btrfs « Doculinux — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:22:16 +0000

[...] Btrfs tiene un desarrollo muy activo, pero algunas características “finales” no han sido presentadas aún. Puede ser un buen reemplazo apra Ext4 y se le considera estable, pero faltan algunos detalles para mejorar su desempeño. No puede negarse que es un proyecto muy prometedor, tanto es así que va a incluirse en Fedora 13, pero sigue clasificándose como experimental en el núcleo de Linux. Ubuntu 10.10 lo va a incluir probablemente como opción, siempre y cuando se cumplan unos requisitos. [...]

By: BTRFS and Ubuntu « The-Source.com

BTRFS and Ubuntu « The-Source.com — Tue, 25 May 2010 11:51:03 +0000

[...] I see Sam Varghese has cast a critical eye on talk about btrfs in the upcoming version of Ubuntu. [...]

By: manny

manny — Sun, 23 May 2010 04:58:00 +0000

SUSE Linux Is Hooking Up With Btrfs Too

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODI2Ng

By: lwalton

lwalton — Sat, 22 May 2010 21:56:19 +0000

I’m happy Ubuntu is exploring other file system choices.
Both file sizes and volume sizes will be pressing issues sooner than later.
It seems crazy that I’d ever consider 16TB for files and 1EB a legitimate limitation (as in ext4). But I can see it quickly becoming a issue.

I’d never thought much about de-fragmentation, till I had file systems with hundred of thousands of files, many larger than two gigs.

Or that I would have volumes I needed to resize, with the expectation of *NO* downtime.

Or even having a file server that by default has eight or sixteen cores, And that I could/should/need to leverage them, to improve performance.

By: Colin Watson

Colin Watson — Sat, 22 May 2010 21:34:11 +0000

In response to the anonymous author two comments above: the phrase you quote was a somewhat inaccurate transcription of a face-to-face conversation which didn’t reflect the conclusions we arrived at. In the process of drafting that specification properly, I rewrote it to reflect reality. We have in fact assigned a developer to add btrfs support to GRUB 2 – I’ve already done a fair bit of upstream work on GRUB 2 and mentioned this assignment to the current primary maintainer on IRC, so he’s aware of it.

The background here is that a Red Hat employee posted a fairly complete-looking patch for btrfs support against GRUB Legacy to grub-devel. It’s great that they sent this, but unfortunately GRUB Legacy no longer has an upstream to speak of and so the GRUB 2 maintainers asked if it could be ported to GRUB 2 instead. I never saw a public response to that (and of course RH haven’t switched to GRUB 2 yet, so it may not be too high on their priority list) – there may have been something privately that never reached the list. Certainly, nobody has yet done this and we expect that if we want it to happen in GRUB 2 then we’ll need to do it ourselves. Things are complicated somewhat because the patch includes a copy of btrfs.h, which is GPLv2-only while GRUB is GPLv3; GRUB upstream has asked for an exception to be made, but I gather at second hand that this is tied up in Oracle’s legal department. It’s unfortunately possible that we will need to clean-room this in order to comply with everyone’s licences, although the ideal situation would be that we could simply port the already-working patch.

I’ve already posted a patch for upstream review which at least fixes up grub-probe to cope with the way btrfs returns a virtual device number in st_dev, so that you can run btrfs / with a /boot that GRUB supports. I expect to be able to get this reviewed pretty soon, but I would hope we’d get rather further than that.

And, for what it’s worth, while we’ve been somewhat flippantly talking about using btrfs by default for 10.10, the odds are quite heavily against that being the right thing to do. Nevertheless, it offers some interesting possibilities and we’d like to explore them sooner rather than later, so there’s no harm in setting high goals so that we have the incentive to get the remaining bits of our userspace sorted out. I assume Red Hat ported GRUB Legacy to btrfs for similar reasons.

By: Einblicke in Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat | Ubuntuxx

Einblicke in Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat | Ubuntuxx — Tue, 18 May 2010 15:20:14 +0000

[...] zur Diskusion. BTRFS soll Ext4 in Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat ersetzen. Laut Scott James Remnant dem Entwicklungsleiter von Ubuntu, sieht BTRFS eher als weitere Installationsoption und nicht als [...]

By: .

Tue, 18 May 2010 15:08:53 +0000

Mabe it’s more impressive if the plan did not involve

“There’s a patch in legacy grub that looks like it could be coerced into grub2 or perhaps support will land in grub2 in the next few months and we pick this up for free.”

https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-m-btrfs-support

By: Btrfs ar putea fi sistemul de fişiere implicit în Ubuntu 10.10 « Blogul lui ARVAT

Mon, 17 May 2010 17:18:06 +0000

[...] lucrurile se pot schimba pentru Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat. Scott James Remnant spune într-un blog că se planifică ca o opţiune de instalare pentru btrfs, şi posibilitatea de a face implicit [...]

By: lwalton

lwalton — Mon, 17 May 2010 04:19:21 +0000

Oh and one last thing, Ted Tso was right, Ubuntu needs a senior Kernel developer. And right now I can’t think of a better on then Christoph Hellwig. This guy knows his stuff! Mark Lord would be another good choice!