Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Marc Joliet <marcec@×××.de>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] btrfs conversion: first impressions
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:31:04
Message-Id: 20140512163049.4f605ff0@marcec
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] btrfs conversion: first impressions by "Stefan G. Weichinger"
1 Am Sun, 11 May 2014 23:24:34 +0200
2 schrieb "Stefan G. Weichinger" <lists@×××××.at>:
3
4 [...]
5 > ... but it is really nice-to-have the option to snapshot your root-fs,
6 > do-something-to-it (emerge unstable stuff, delete the wrong files, you
7 > name it ...), and if you don't like it you simply boot using your
8 > snapshot ... that is actually really helpful and also rather easy once
9 > you get your head wrapped around the concepts and the few steps
10 > necessary (and it's quick: the snapshot is done in a blink ...)
11
12 In a presentation by Donny Berkholz at Fosdem this year [0], he mentioned the
13 distro CoreOS, and that they can do atomic updates. I haven't looked it up in
14 detail, but they're website says that they use a dual-root scheme where the
15 update is performed in a second root, which is made the real root after
16 rebooting or after a kexec [1]. It seems to me that this could be made simpler
17 and easier with btrfs snapshots.
18
19 > As far as I researched btrfs seems to be quite reliable in a not too
20 > complex (read: multi devices) setup ... and backups never hurt anyway.
21
22 Of course, for me one of *the* big features was the capability to automatically
23 fix corrupted data (the self-healing features of btrfs). This is only possible
24 when you have redundancy across multiple devices. (I'm running a scrub right
25 now.)
26
27 But even with a single device, you can at least *detect* corruption, I just
28 want to also be able to have it automatically *corrected*.
29
30 > As I do backups all the time I feel quite confident to test my setups
31 > for the next few days and maybe even completely overhaul my desktop setup.
32
33 Ditto :) . As risky as it is, this was also a "test" of my backup, in the
34 sense that, while I knew the backups looked okay by manual inspection, I
35 hadn't actually restored from backup yet. Obviously, it worked :) .
36
37 > -> 2x 1TB HDDs plus 1x 256GB SSD (plus the one older 80GB SSD for tests
38 > right now) ... with LVM and stuff (remember my hassles last week with
39 > the LVMs not activated??) ... I could run one btrfs-pool on the 2 HDDs
40 > and one on the SSD and cut all of my various filesystems out of that.
41 >
42 > Would mixing hdds and the ssd into one pool make sense? I think, no ... ?
43
44 I suspect something like bcache would work (except I remember reading that
45 btrfs does not work with it yet).
46
47 > --
48 >
49 > I will also test running VMs on btrfs-subvolumes and doing snapshots:
50 >
51 > snapshot the underlying subvolume, apply some changes within the VM and
52 > then rollback to the snapshot.
53 >
54 > This would remove LVM-snapshotting out of the way ... etc etc
55 >
56 > As mentioned before, looking forward ... and curious!
57
58 I'm glad I motivated some people to try btrfs themselves :) .
59
60 [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egjcVGKwnrw
61 [1] http://coreos.com/using-coreos/updates/ (section "technical details")
62 --
63 Marc Joliet
64 --
65 "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
66 don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] btrfs conversion: first impressions "Stefan G. Weichinger" <lists@×××××.at>