3 ms·

Is there a stable (loaded word, I know) versioning file system available for Linux?

dmm 9y ago
LVM can do snapshots and Redhat is working on its own hybrid storage management solution based on xfs called stratis[0]. Redhat deprecated btrfs recently. I don't think that means anything more than Redhat has lots of xfs devs and no btrfs devs. [0] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Stratis-Red-Hat-Project https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Stratis-...
jnsaff2 9y ago
There is hope though: https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs
c-van-z 9y ago
nilfs?
Spivak 9y ago
The most stable solution right now is taking your favorite stable fs like ext4 or xfs and using LVM thin pools for snapshots.
topspin 9y ago
The simple, unqualified answer is no. BTFS is official Linux and apparently "ok" for simple use cases, but there are no end of reports of failures when non-trivial RAID modes are used, demanding work loads are applied, device replacement is attempted, etc. and there are performance problems under a variety of conditions. There are enough qualifications on the BTFS status page[1] that I, for one, do not consider it 'stable.' ZFS is a thing on Linux, but it's not in the kernel and _when_ it breaks the kernel developers don't officially care, except when they happen to have a foot in both camps. This situation naturally limits the size of the ZFS on Linux user base; you're one of the few if you're doing it and that's not where most production users want to be. LVM can snapshot logical volumes and produce `crash consistent' volumes independent of the type of file system. That's been my go-to solution given no other alternative. The fact is Linux has trailed far behind its contemporaries in advanced file systems for... 10+ years now? Not terribly flattering. I suspect the reason is that most production use of Linux occurs in environments that provide many enterprise storage functions independent of the operating system, so there isn't much pressure to, for instance, harden BTRFS until there aren't major deficiencies. I can snapshot/clone/restore/whatever my EBS volumes any time I wish and I can do similar with my private cloud powervault volumes as well. I trust either of these mechanisms far more than _anything_ Linux has ever provided, including LVM. [1] https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status
ryao 9y ago
Do you mean snapshotting filesystems? If you really meant snapshotting, that would be ZFS. If you really meant a versioning filesystem, Wikipedia claims NILFS is stable: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_system#Linux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_system#Linux

dmm 9y ago

LVM can do snapshots and Redhat is working on its own hybrid storage management solution based on xfs called stratis[0]. Redhat deprecated btrfs recently. I don't think that means anything more than Redhat has lots of xfs devs and no btrfs devs. [0] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Stratis-Red-Hat-Project https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Stratis-...

jnsaff2 9y ago

There is hope though: https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs

c-van-z 9y ago

nilfs?

Spivak 9y ago

The most stable solution right now is taking your favorite stable fs like ext4 or xfs and using LVM thin pools for snapshots.

topspin 9y ago

The simple, unqualified answer is no. BTFS is official Linux and apparently "ok" for simple use cases, but there are no end of reports of failures when non-trivial RAID modes are used, demanding work loads are applied, device replacement is attempted, etc. and there are performance problems under a variety of conditions. There are enough qualifications on the BTFS status page[1] that I, for one, do not consider it 'stable.' ZFS is a thing on Linux, but it's not in the kernel and _when_ it breaks the kernel developers don't officially care, except when they happen to have a foot in both camps. This situation naturally limits the size of the ZFS on Linux user base; you're one of the few if you're doing it and that's not where most production users want to be. LVM can snapshot logical volumes and produce `crash consistent' volumes independent of the type of file system. That's been my go-to solution given no other alternative. The fact is Linux has trailed far behind its contemporaries in advanced file systems for... 10+ years now? Not terribly flattering. I suspect the reason is that most production use of Linux occurs in environments that provide many enterprise storage functions independent of the operating system, so there isn't much pressure to, for instance, harden BTRFS until there aren't major deficiencies. I can snapshot/clone/restore/whatever my EBS volumes any time I wish and I can do similar with my private cloud powervault volumes as well. I trust either of these mechanisms far more than _anything_ Linux has ever provided, including LVM. [1] https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status

ryao 9y ago

Do you mean snapshotting filesystems? If you really meant snapshotting, that would be ZFS. If you really meant a versioning filesystem, Wikipedia claims NILFS is stable: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_system#Linux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_system#Linux