Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is it time to remove reiserfs?

lkml.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 260 posts

Re: Is it time to remove reiserfs?

#181

Post by patrakov »

api wrote: post #83
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The logical successor was supposed to be btrfs, but that project IMHO may never be ready for production use. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users Facebook deployed it on millions of servers. Is that production enough? Synology NAS devices also use it.

Lots of people seem to turn up their nose at btrfs. Is there a reason for that? Was it perhaps launched before it was really ready and people still remember early versions?

For me, it was https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85581. Yes this endless-write loop is long fixed, but, given that something with 99% similar symptoms has surfaced in kernel 5.16 (or was this original bug not fixed properly?), I would say no.

Re: Is it time to remove reiserfs?

#184

Post by [deleted] »

Syonyk wrote: post #131
api wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people seem to turn up their nose at btrfs. Is there a reason for that? Was it perhaps launched before it was really ready and people still remember early versions?

> Is there a reason for that? I can give you mine. I was working with a Raspberry Pi 3, and using a USB SSD. It's a USB2 link, so a bit choked, and I figured, hey, filesystem compression can help here, btrfs supports it, great! And it helped - you could get "real world" disk reads a good bit faster than the USB2 bus speed. Until one day, I rebooted, and it didn't come back up. Analysis on another system was that the…

[deleted]

Re: Is it time to remove reiserfs?

#185

Post by pschastain »

acatton wrote: post #160
hutrdvnj wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is btrfs stable yet?

It's always been. I used it on my servers in "Raid 10" mode and on my daily driver for 3 years now. As long as you don't do BTRFS-level raid 5/6. (Just do lvm-level or md-raid-level raid 5/6) don't do many subvolume with quota. (many subvolumes is fine) It's production ready. I don't know where this "btrfs is not stable" coming from. According to HackerNews, I should have lost my data due to BTRFS 10 times already.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people only consider their own experiences as relevant

"btrfs is not stable" is coming from people for whom btrfs has not been stable. Why is that so hard to understand?

Re: Is it time to remove reiserfs?

#186

Post by thrill »

hbn wrote: post #141
codazoda wrote: post #28

> NB: Please don't discuss the personalities involved. Ah, but that's all I can think about when I read about reiserfs. For anyone who is unaware, the author, Hans Reiser, killed his wife and hid her body. There was a long and public investigation and he was found guilty. He later produced her body as part of a plea deal.

Props to you for pulling out the quote were he specifically said to not talk about that, and keep discussion about the APIs, proving that you read it, and then bring it into the thread anyway to derail it with the brutal murder topic.

He's not discussing it on LKML, nor did he hijack someone's thread here on HN.

Re: Is it time to remove reiserfs?

#187

Post by cthalupa »

hbn wrote: post #141
codazoda wrote: post #28

> NB: Please don't discuss the personalities involved. Ah, but that's all I can think about when I read about reiserfs. For anyone who is unaware, the author, Hans Reiser, killed his wife and hid her body. There was a long and public investigation and he was found guilty. He later produced her body as part of a plea deal.

Props to you for pulling out the quote were he specifically said to not talk about that, and keep discussion about the APIs, proving that you read it, and then bring it into the thread anyway to derail it with the brutal murder topic.

HN is not the kernel mailing list, and the range of topics discussed on here are significantly wider than that of the mailing list. If we restricted ourselves to the same rules, there's not many posts on the front page that would be allowed.

Sometimes we have no choice as to whether or not we can use the work of someone who has done bad things - Einstein was quite awful to his wife, for example, but it's not practical to ditch relativity just because he sucked on a personal level. But there's plenty of replacement filesystems - should there be no discussion as to whether or not we should weigh the moral issues alongside the technical ones?

Re: Is it time to remove reiserfs?

#189

Post by pas »

pschastain wrote: post #185
acatton wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always been. I used it on my servers in "Raid 10" mode and on my daily driver for 3 years now. As long as you don't do BTRFS-level raid 5/6. (Just do lvm-level or md-raid-level raid 5/6) don't do many subvolume with quota. (many subvolumes is fine) It's production ready. I don't know where this "btrfs is not stable" coming from. According to HackerNews, I should have lost my data due to BTRFS 10 times already.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people only consider their own experiences as relevant "btrfs is not stable" is coming from people for whom btrfs has not been stable. Why is that so hard to understand?

Okay, was it "not stable" because they expected it to be ext3-like and when btrfs discovered that their system eats bytes and refuses to mount (and they would need to use the recovery mode, get a second disk and do a copy and then a proper restore) or it was not stable because they ran into a kernel oops/bug/deadlock/etc?

Re: Is it time to remove reiserfs?

#190

Post by samus »

bjourne wrote: post #110

Implicit in Wilcox e-mail is the claim that there is a non-trivial cost of keeping reiserfs even when it is not being updated . Cost of keeping resierfs in the kernel > Cost of removing it. A filesystem is like a plugin for the kernel. In theory, it doesn't care what filesystem you use because it only access it using a common plugin interface. So keeping reiserfs in the kernel should cost 0. In practice, the cost is…

In this case, ReiserFS was actually complicating an interface. But interestingly, a patch to resolve just that was published as a follow-up to the message this is all about.
Post reply on HN