12 ms·
First they came for your SELinux... and you did nothing. Then they came for your Docker... and you did nothing. Now they've come for your filesystem... Madness!
by mrmondo 12y ago
First they came for your SELinux... and you did nothing. Then they came for your Docker... and you did nothing. Now they've come for your filesystem... Madness!
Just as BTRFS is finally stable and fast CoreOS decide yet again to ship.
We've been using BTRFS in production for over a year now (and heavily with Docker) and haven't suffered any problems at all(1), in fact we actively simulate failures to practice / test repair processes which have all been successful.
To me, while diversity is great CoreOS is going the path of Ubuntu with it's NIH syndrome.
(1) With the exclusion of a slow docker push/pull bug that's about to be patched: https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/9720 https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/9720
- akerl_ 12y agoCan you clarify how this is an example of NIH? They're switching the default from btrfs to ext4, not writing their own filesystem. Also, it's necessary if they want to switch to overlayfs as the Docker backend, because btrfs lacks whiteout support which causes problems with overlayfs. Switching to overlayfs for Docker makes a lot of sense, given that you get the dedupe benefits of AUFS with lower overhead than devicemapper/btrfs and it's now part of the mainline kernel tree.
- mrmondo 12y agooverlayfs is still in its infancy and you're then still relying on an underlying filesystem, also unless I'm mistaken OverlayFS doesn't provide compression and checksumming?