6 ms·
As a Linux user since kernel 0.96, I have never once considered doing an in-place migration to a new file system. That seems like a crazy thing to try to do, an
by orev 3y ago
As a Linux user since kernel 0.96, I have never once considered doing an in-place migration to a new file system. That seems like a crazy thing to try to do, and I would hope it’s only done as a last resort and with all data fully backed up before trying it.
I would agree that if this is presented in the documentation as something it supports, then it should work as expected. If it doesn’t work, then a pull request to remove it from the docs might be the best course of action.
- tuyiown 3y agoI don't know if you talk only about linux or you meant your comment as a generalization, but have you heard of in place APFS migration from HFS+ ?
- bayindirh 3y agoSimilarly Microsoft offered FAT32 to NTFS in-place migration, and it did the required checks before starting to ensure it completes successfully. It was more than 20 years ago IIRC.
- tuyiown 3y agoThe notable thing with APFS is that the migration came automatically with an OS update (to high sierra) by default.
- bayindirh 3y agoYes, I think also mounting ext3 systems as ext4 and migrating it to ext4 as you access it is a good way too. IIRC you had to enable a couple of flags in the ext3 system with tune2fs to enable ext4 features as well, but it didn't break, and migrated as you write & delete files.
- londons_explore 3y agoThe design of the convert utility is pretty good - the convert is effectively atomic - at any point during conversion, if you kill power midway, the disk is either a valid ext4 filesystem, or a valid btrfs filesystem.
- jorvi 3y agoIt is atomic, but at least for me it left both types of checks that BTRFS can do with unrecoverable errors for a few blocks. All in all not too terrible and I just accepted the bogus data as good by resetting (?) the checksums for those blocks. But acting as if it’s just a terminal command and Bob’s your uncle.. that’s just wrong.
- thfuran 3y ago>That seems like a crazy thing to try to do It seems like a reasonable thing to want to do. Would you never update an installed application or the kernel to get new features or fixes? I don't really think there's much fundamental difference. If what you mean is "it seems likely to fail catastrophically", well that seems like an indication that either the converter or the target filesystem isn't in a good state.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bartvk 3y ago> It seems like a reasonable thing to want to do This was actually a routine thing to do, under iOS and macOS, with the transition from HFS to APFS.
- thijsvandien 3y agoDon't forget about FAT32 to NTFS long before that.
- geraldhh 3y agoboth transitions were mandated by a supporting organization thou.
- KronisLV 3y ago> Would you never update an installed application or the kernel to get new features or fixes? Honestly, if that was an option without the certainty of getting pwned due to some RCE down the road, then yes, there are cases where I absolutely wouldn't want to update some software and just have it chugging away for years in its present functional state.
- thfuran 3y agoAnd there are no cases where you actually want a new feature?