191–200 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The overhead of VMs, properly provisioned, is minimal these days. Even going with card passthrough just works.
You need a whole damn extra card for passthrough. With the price of today’s high end cards, that option seems… less than attractive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>How stable is Btrfs these days? Remember reading years ago that it was bad about spontaneously corrupting itself for no apparent reason. On one hand, Fedora and SUSE default to Btrfs. On the other hand, data corruption bugs are still being unearthed [1]: [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169947 .
FWIW I've been using btrfs for the root partition for a decade without any (observed) corruption problems. This is across multiple installs of OpenSUSE Tumbleweed on laptops and PCs, HDDs and SSDs and most recently an SD card. Back in the day it needed manual intervention to rebalance but that is automated now. Also, OpenSUSE's update program automatically takes pre- and post- snapshots, and these snapshots have save…
It was in files I wasn't really using anymore (some ssh key files on vps that weren't online anymore) so I have no idea when it really occured.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's entirely due to Microsoft's hubris.
Yeah. Screw Microsoft for not supporting a file system with a rounding error desktop user base.
Related tangent: Something I don't fully understand (perhaps I just haven't found a project that facilitates it) is why there isn't a Windows extension (driver?) that allows for native mounting of ext4 partitions within Windows explorer. Surely, given the Linux native file system is open source, adding the ability to mount ext4 partitions natively should be something people can add to Windows? I have seen third party…
ext2fsd and ext2ifs do exactly that, although neither of them is very actively maintained (but do they really need to?)
This is really cool and speaks to the modularity of the Windows file system stack. I love projects that customize Windows (working against its closed-source nature). There’s an OpenZFS port to Windows[0]. I wonder if my hopes of having ZFS on Windows (including the boot drive, because I would love to be able to snapshot and rollback) would actually be possible. [0] https://github.com/openzfsonwindows/openzfs
But Windows lets you snapshot and rollback via Volume Shadow Copying (System Restore in UI + 3rd party tool Shadow Explorer to browse snapshots).
I am pretty strongly pro-Windows NT. I think there’s a ton of good design and implementation in it. (The parts of NT that came from Win32 are the more irritating parts.)
VSS isn’t wholly unreasonable. The design seems pretty well thought-out. I particularly like the VSS providers that can interface with hardware-based snapshot mechanisms and VSS writers to allow software to quiesce IO. It’s all pretty neat, but it seems to fail to take snapshots “mysteriously” pretty often in practice. Since I can’t see the source I don’t have much chance of actually figuring out what’s going wrong either.
I also like that VSS is clearly distinct from volume management and the filesystem itself. The layer violation inherent in the design of ZFS seems a bit clunky to me. In use, though, it has done very well for me and I haven’t bumped up against limitations re: volume management and redundancy being tied to the filesystem too much (probably because I’ve always come at it with the expectation that my volumes are pretty much decided at deployment time and migration means starting a fresh zpool and starting over).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but the Linux audience is certainly not one that pays for such things. Like the Parent Poster explained, this is a hard and niche technical problem. Someone has to foot the bill for this, and apparently there is a "need" for it but no market to sell it.
The Linux audience is software engineers and the companies they who employ them.
- Linux on Btrfs
- Windows on NTFS
The Btrfs driver on windows allowed me to read and write Linux files from windows and the other way around. For my use cases this worked quite okay.
I/O in Windows XP is faster than Windows 11. 22 years of development for nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in the day, and I mean like mid-late 90's, you could actually install the Linux kernel, files etc., straight onto a Windows FAT partition and boot into it. Not exactly what was being asked for, but a weird old fact I'd forgotten about.
Sometime in the early 2000s, when microarchitectural features for virtualization were rare, I used coLinux in a working capacity. It has a design was amazing at how well it worked given the constrained size of the code changes. In short, it ran a copy of Linux in supervisor mode in addition to Windows (this is the "driver mode"). At the same time. Both in supervisor mode. As a giant coroutines yielding to one another…
Does anyone know if there's a relationship between colinux and how ms eventually ended up implementing wsl ?