From Fedora Project Wiki
(Created page with "= Features to check = === Encryption === * Is there plan to utilize dm-crypt or do you want to reimplement whole encryption in btrfs? On the wiki page are a little misleading inf...") |
(unsure whether the btrfs hardlink problem is solved) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710534 | * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710534 | ||
* [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689127 virtualization killer] | * [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689127 virtualization killer] | ||
Possible candidate: I cannot find any recent info about the problem with the relatively small number of hardlinks to a single file in a single directory, https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15762 . Has this been resolved yet? [[User:Stijn|Stijn]] 09:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
== UI support == | == UI support == | ||
Latest revision as of 09:57, 8 February 2012
Features to check
Encryption
- Is there plan to utilize dm-crypt or do you want to reimplement whole encryption in btrfs? On the wiki page are a little misleading information about btrfs/dm-crypt https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/articles/g/o/t/Gotchas.html
- Missing swap file support in combination with missing encryption removes very important Fedora feature (fully encrypted laptops).
- initramfs - Grub2 cannot boot from LUKS/encrypted disk. Despite experimental patches exists, these are not upstream and are very problematic (it need reimplementation of every new algorithm, LUKS version, hash etc inside grub2). So, the reality is that you need initramfs even with grub2 if you want full disk encryption.
Quota
- Working with quota must be still possible. Missing quota means that some installations (like ftp servers etc) has no ability to limit users space.
Anaconda
- basic support is possible, but no cool btrfs features. It's not feature as a future strategy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features/BtrfsSupport
Raid5/6
- According to some info, there is no plan to implement raid5/6 directly in btrfs but reuse common library with MD. What are the plans? ETA?
- Can btrfs do all features like MD? (Online reshaping, monitoring, regular RAID resync, etc. Pointer to documentation?)
- btw Page: "The change should be largely invisible to users." -> The RAID maintenance (using mdadm) is completely different, the same applies for LVM.
Recovery strategy
- fsck (or different recovery tool) must work.
- When fsck is planned to be commited to upstream btrfs-progs? http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs-unstable.git;a=summary Another thing, why there are no recent commits and why Fedora has patches, which are not in upstream?
- Is there instruction how to handle situations like disk failure?
Stability & performance of filesystem
All btrfs bugs should be reviewed and the important will be added into tracking bug for blockers of btrfs.
Candidates:
Possible candidate: I cannot find any recent info about the problem with the relatively small number of hardlinks to a single file in a single directory, https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15762 . Has this been resolved yet? Stijn 09:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
UI support
- A few high-level use cases from a desktop perspective here - are those feasible at all with btrfs in F16, F17, or down the road?
Performance
- new benchmarks with kernel 3.x, the latest benchmarks are for 2.6.39