From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S3aNl-0007eO-MU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:51:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3ACA0E0761; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 21:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-iy0-f181.google.com (mail-iy0-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E53E0632 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 21:48:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iaoo28 with SMTP id o28so3348487iao.40 for ; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:48:34 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mike@trausch.us designates 10.50.160.131 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.50.160.131; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mike@trausch.us designates 10.50.160.131 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mike@trausch.us Received: from mr.google.com ([10.50.160.131]) by 10.50.160.131 with SMTP id xk3mr80586igb.19.1330724914194 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:48:34 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.160.131 with SMTP id xk3mr54615igb.19.1330724914148; Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:48:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.217.2 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:48:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.42.217.2 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:48:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 16:48:34 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone used NILFS2? From: Michael Trausch To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9340443cd344804ba49893e X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlV3cByLBpvhLGHy1gORjGFVdHa+N8BZFYxpQHCLt2p+DhbfJmeuM4cAWBv0Nf5NzvNRKBw X-Archives-Salt: 043bcff5-92c3-42e0-800d-d347578a0a1f X-Archives-Hash: bd3959adfcaf72fcd93a1859b5f56352 --14dae9340443cd344804ba49893e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 If you're looking for a flexible filesystem, try btrfs. It is quite nice. It still needs some help in the performance department, but given a recent Linux kernel (say, 3.2) it works wonderfully. I use its snapshots and COW functionality the most. The only downside to it is that it sometimes is slowish when I do many writes in a short period of time. Also, fsync() still takes awhile, so applications that use it liberally, such as dpkg, can run very slow. Things which use SQLite also suffer under heavy write loads. For that reason alone, I wouldn't yet use it on a database server. I would use it on a read-mostly file server, however. -- Sent from my Ice Cream Sandwich-powered HTC G2 Please excuse any typos. On Mar 2, 2012 12:03 PM, "Paul Hartman" wrote: > I'm very interested in NILFS2 and considering using it as rootfs. I > read some good reviews and seems to perform okay in benchmarks. The > automatic checkpoints/snapshots sounds like it could be useful. (I'm > thinking especially to see prior versions of files in /etc for > example.) > > Have any of you used NILFS2 and have any failures or success to report? > > --14dae9340443cd344804ba49893e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If you're looking for a flexible filesystem, try btrfs. It is quite = nice. It still needs some help in the performance department, but given a r= ecent Linux kernel (say, 3.2) it works wonderfully. I use its snapshots and= COW functionality the most.

The only downside to it is that it sometimes is slowish when I do many w= rites in a short period of time. Also, fsync() still takes awhile, so appli= cations that use it liberally, such as dpkg, can run very slow.=C2=A0 Thing= s which use SQLite also suffer under heavy write loads.

For that reason alone, I wouldn't yet use it on a database server. I= would use it on a read-mostly file server, however.

--
Sent from my Ice Cream Sandwich-powered HTC G2
Please excuse any typos.

On Mar 2, 2012 12:03 PM, "Paul Hartman"= ; <paul.hartman+gento= o@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm very interested in NILFS2 and considering using it as rootfs. I
read some good reviews and seems to perform okay in benchmarks. The
automatic checkpoints/snapshots sounds like it could be useful. (I'm thinking especially to see prior versions of files in /etc for
example.)

Have any of you used NILFS2 and have any failures or success to report?

--14dae9340443cd344804ba49893e--