* Re: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server?
2014-12-31 3:29 should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server? Dave Stevens
@ 2014-12-31 4:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2014-12-31 4:03 ` Wang Shilong
2015-01-01 8:22 ` Zygo Blaxell
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Qu Wenruo @ 2014-12-31 4:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Stevens, Btrfs BTRFS
Hi Dave,
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server?
From: Dave Stevens <geek@uniserve.com>
To: Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Date: 2014年12月31日 11:29
> I have a well tested and working fine Centos5-Xen system. Accumulated
> cruft from various development efforts make it desirable to redo the
> install. Currently a RAID-10 ext4 filesystem with LVM and 750G of
> storage. There's a hot spare 750 drive in the system.
>
> I'm thinking of migrating the web sites (almost the only use of the
> server) to a spare then installing Centos-7 and btrfs, then migrating
> the sites back.
>
> I see RH marks btrfs in C7 as a technology preview but don't
> understand what that implies for future support and a suitably stable
> basis for storage.
Technology preview means no full official Red Hat support, just preview
for technology.
https://access.redhat.com/support/offerings/techpreview
It may comes to full support in later version if it matures.
>
> The demand on the system is low and not likely to change in the near
> future, storage access speeds are not likely to be dealbreakers and it
> would be nice to not need to use LVM, btrfs seems to have a better
> feature set and more intuitive command set. But I'm uncertain about
> stability. Anyone have an opinion?
If I am sysadmin, I will still prefer the mature linux soft raid/LVM.
Less bug, mature kernel/user-land tools and use case,and you don't need
to always update kernel/btrfs-progs
to address known bugs or fix corrupted fs
(if stay away from
scrub/replace/balance/almost-full-disk/sudden-power-failure, it will
shouldn't happen though)
But, if you want to contribute to btrfs, such production environment may
expose some problem we didn't find.
Although you may take a lot time compiling latest kernel/btrfs-progs and
doing btrfs-image dump, not to mention
the offline time...
Thanks,
Qu
>
> Dave
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server?
2014-12-31 3:29 should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server? Dave Stevens
2014-12-31 4:00 ` Qu Wenruo
@ 2014-12-31 4:03 ` Wang Shilong
2014-12-31 4:06 ` Wang Shilong
2014-12-31 5:55 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-01-01 8:22 ` Zygo Blaxell
2 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wang Shilong @ 2014-12-31 4:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Stevens; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
Hello,
>
> I have a well tested and working fine Centos5-Xen system. Accumulated cruft from various development efforts make it desirable to redo the install. Currently a RAID-10 ext4 filesystem with LVM and 750G of storage. There's a hot spare 750 drive in the system.
>
> I'm thinking of migrating the web sites (almost the only use of the server) to a spare then installing Centos-7 and btrfs, then migrating the sites back.
>
> I see RH marks btrfs in C7 as a technology preview but don't understand what that implies for future support and a suitably stable basis for storage.
>
> The demand on the system is low and not likely to change in the near future, storage access speeds are not likely to be dealbreakers and it would be nice to not need to use LVM, btrfs seems to have a better feature set and more intuitive command set. But I'm uncertain about stability. Anyone have an opinion?
>
I used CentOS7 btrfs myself, just doing some tests..it crashed easily.
I don’t know how much efforts that Redhat do on btrfs for 7 series.
> Dave
>
> --
> "As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business,
> the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance."
>
> -- John Dewey
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Best Regards,
Wang Shilong
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server?
2014-12-31 4:03 ` Wang Shilong
@ 2014-12-31 4:06 ` Wang Shilong
2014-12-31 6:04 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-12-31 5:55 ` Eric Sandeen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wang Shilong @ 2014-12-31 4:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Stevens; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
>
> Hello,
>
>>
>> I have a well tested and working fine Centos5-Xen system. Accumulated cruft from various development efforts make it desirable to redo the install. Currently a RAID-10 ext4 filesystem with LVM and 750G of storage. There's a hot spare 750 drive in the system.
>>
>> I'm thinking of migrating the web sites (almost the only use of the server) to a spare then installing Centos-7 and btrfs, then migrating the sites back.
>>
>> I see RH marks btrfs in C7 as a technology preview but don't understand what that implies for future support and a suitably stable basis for storage.
>>
>> The demand on the system is low and not likely to change in the near future, storage access speeds are not likely to be dealbreakers and it would be nice to not need to use LVM, btrfs seems to have a better feature set and more intuitive command set. But I'm uncertain about stability. Anyone have an opinion?
>>
>
> I used CentOS7 btrfs myself, just doing some tests..it crashed easily.
> I don’t know how much efforts that Redhat do on btrfs for 7 series.
Maybe use SUSE enterprise for btrfs will be a better choice, they offered
better support for btrfs as far as i know.
>
>
>> Dave
>>
>> --
>> "As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business,
>> the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance."
>>
>> -- John Dewey
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> Best Regards,
> Wang Shilong
>
Best Regards,
Wang Shilong
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server?
2014-12-31 4:06 ` Wang Shilong
@ 2014-12-31 6:04 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-12-31 6:16 ` Fajar A. Nugraha
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2014-12-31 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang Shilong, Dave Stevens; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
On 12/30/14 10:06 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>>
>>> I have a well tested and working fine Centos5-Xen system. Accumulated cruft from various development efforts make it desirable to redo the install. Currently a RAID-10 ext4 filesystem with LVM and 750G of storage. There's a hot spare 750 drive in the system.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of migrating the web sites (almost the only use of the server) to a spare then installing Centos-7 and btrfs, then migrating the sites back.
>>>
>>> I see RH marks btrfs in C7 as a technology preview but don't understand what that implies for future support and a suitably stable basis for storage.
>>>
>>> The demand on the system is low and not likely to change in the near future, storage access speeds are not likely to be dealbreakers and it would be nice to not need to use LVM, btrfs seems to have a better feature set and more intuitive command set. But I'm uncertain about stability. Anyone have an opinion?
>>>
>>
>> I used CentOS7 btrfs myself, just doing some tests..it crashed easily.
>> I don’t know how much efforts that Redhat do on btrfs for 7 series.
>
> Maybe use SUSE enterprise for btrfs will be a better choice, they offered
> better support for btrfs as far as i know.
I believe SuSE's most recent support statement on btrfs is here, I think.
https://www.suse.com/releasenotes/x86_64/SUSE-SLES/12/#fate-317221
-Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server?
2014-12-31 6:04 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2014-12-31 6:16 ` Fajar A. Nugraha
2014-12-31 16:28 ` Duncan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Fajar A. Nugraha @ 2014-12-31 6:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Wang Shilong, Dave Stevens, Btrfs BTRFS
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12/30/14 10:06 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
>>> I used CentOS7 btrfs myself, just doing some tests..it crashed easily.
>>> I don’t know how much efforts that Redhat do on btrfs for 7 series.
>>
>> Maybe use SUSE enterprise for btrfs will be a better choice, they offered
>> better support for btrfs as far as i know.
>
> I believe SuSE's most recent support statement on btrfs is here, I think.
>
> https://www.suse.com/releasenotes/x86_64/SUSE-SLES/12/#fate-317221
Wow. Suse use btrfs for root by default, but actively prevents user
from using compression (unless specifically overiden using module
parameter)?
Weird, since IIRC compression has been around and stable for a long time.
--
Fajar
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server?
2014-12-31 6:16 ` Fajar A. Nugraha
@ 2014-12-31 16:28 ` Duncan
2014-12-31 18:17 ` Roman Mamedov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Duncan @ 2014-12-31 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Fajar A. Nugraha posted on Wed, 31 Dec 2014 13:16:14 +0700 as excerpted:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>> On 12/30/14 10:06 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
>>>> I used CentOS7 btrfs myself, just doing some tests..it crashed
>>>> easily.
>>>> I don’t know how much efforts that Redhat do on btrfs for 7 series.
>>>
>>> Maybe use SUSE enterprise for btrfs will be a better choice, they
>>> offered better support for btrfs as far as i know.
>>
>> I believe SuSE's most recent support statement on btrfs is here, I
>> think.
>>
>> https://www.suse.com/releasenotes/x86_64/SUSE-SLES/12/#fate-317221
>
> Wow. Suse use btrfs for root by default, but actively prevents user from
> using compression (unless specifically overiden using module parameter)?
>
> Weird, since IIRC compression has been around and stable for a long
> time.
I noticed that.
I also noticed that they mention reiserfs as btrfs-convert-ready. That I
didn't know. I thought btrfs-convert only supported ext*.
Tho I'd guess ext* has had more testing, and given the headaches I've
seen people posting here having with it, I'd strongly recommend creating
and testing a backup and restoring from it onto the new btrfs, as opposed
to doing the direct convert.
Still, I wasn't aware it was even possible, and definitely not that it
was good enough for SuSE to support. Cool that it is. =:^)
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server?
2014-12-31 4:03 ` Wang Shilong
2014-12-31 4:06 ` Wang Shilong
@ 2014-12-31 5:55 ` Eric Sandeen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2014-12-31 5:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang Shilong, Dave Stevens; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
On 12/30/14 10:03 PM, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Hello,
>
>>
>> I have a well tested and working fine Centos5-Xen system.
>> Accumulated cruft from various development efforts make it
>> desirable to redo the install. Currently a RAID-10 ext4 filesystem
>> with LVM and 750G of storage. There's a hot spare 750 drive in the
>> system.
>>
>> I'm thinking of migrating the web sites (almost the only use of the
>> server) to a spare then installing Centos-7 and btrfs, then
>> migrating the sites back.
>>
>> I see RH marks btrfs in C7 as a technology preview but don't
>> understand what that implies for future support and a suitably
>> stable basis for storage.
Red Hat's statement on tech preview is here (I sure hope it doesn't
require a login ...) https://access.redhat.com/support/offerings/techpreview
>> The demand on the system is low and not likely to change in the
>> near future, storage access speeds are not likely to be
>> dealbreakers and it would be nice to not need to use LVM, btrfs
>> seems to have a better feature set and more intuitive command set.
>> But I'm uncertain about stability. Anyone have an opinion?
>
> I used CentOS7 btrfs myself, just doing some tests..it crashed easily.
> I don’t know how much efforts that Redhat do on btrfs for 7 series.
RHEL7.0 GA (released last May) has btrfs kernel code from v3.13.
RHEL7.1 will have btrfs code from around v3.16.
The stability of btrfs in RHEL7 releases depends heavily on the
maturity and stability of upstream btrfs at the time of the release.
IOWS, if btrfs around v3.13 crashed easily; there is nothing magical
in RHEL7.0 to fix that. ;)
-Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server?
2014-12-31 3:29 should I use btrfs on Centos 7 for a new production server? Dave Stevens
2014-12-31 4:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2014-12-31 4:03 ` Wang Shilong
@ 2015-01-01 8:22 ` Zygo Blaxell
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Zygo Blaxell @ 2015-01-01 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Stevens; +Cc: Btrfs BTRFS
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2754 bytes --]
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 07:29:10PM -0800, Dave Stevens wrote:
> I have a well tested and working fine Centos5-Xen system.
> Accumulated cruft from various development efforts make it desirable
> to redo the install. Currently a RAID-10 ext4 filesystem with LVM
> and 750G of storage. There's a hot spare 750 drive in the system.
>
> I'm thinking of migrating the web sites (almost the only use of the
> server) to a spare then installing Centos-7 and btrfs, then
> migrating the sites back.
>
> I see RH marks btrfs in C7 as a technology preview but don't
> understand what that implies for future support and a suitably
> stable basis for storage.
>
> The demand on the system is low and not likely to change in the near
> future, storage access speeds are not likely to be dealbreakers and
> it would be nice to not need to use LVM, btrfs seems to have a
> better feature set and more intuitive command set. But I'm uncertain
> about stability. Anyone have an opinion?
If you need the kind of reliability where you can set up a server and turn
your back on it for years, don't use btrfs. Even ext4 is risky for that.
If you have a farm of machines, working backups and fail-over, or you
are running a development box and can tolerate downtime or data loss,
then by all means test btrfs on them. If you have a server, singular,
and downtime is a problem, then btrfs is not for you.
It has been 4 days since my last full btrfs filesystem rebuild on
a server. That one was running kernel 3.17.7 when it failed. The
previous one was 81 days ago.
You will still need LVM so you can split your raw disks into smaller btrfs
filesystems so that you can replace individual btrfs filesystems when
(not if) they irretrievably corrupt themselves under heavy write loads.
You'll probably also want to create a LVM snapshot whenever you run
btrfs check so you can roll back in case 'btrfs check --repair' makes
things worse.
btrfs can handle random corruption well, but corruption due to kernel
bugs is usually irreparable. The btrfs tools are able to recover from
previously fixed known bugs, but not the unknown new bugs.
If your filesystem is mostly read with few writes then btrfs will last
longer between catastrophic failures--maybe even long enough for a
three-year server service lifecycle.
> Dave
>
> --
> "As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business,
> the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance."
>
> -- John Dewey
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread