| Re: Why the ploop become the default? [message #51377 is a reply to message #51372] |
Wed, 30 April 2014 14:47   |
yuri
Messages: 2
Registered: April 2014
Location: Brasil
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Sorry, but i'm still desagree with the points thay you have appointed Ales:
Quote:- EXT4 is not at it's end of life or in any way deprecated. The fact that RHEL 7 is using XFS as default doesn't mean any such thing
When I said that the EXT4 are deprecated is because it's a 20 years old filesystem, very stable and useful, but full of restrictions and limitations of the old main structure of the EXT2 that is kept for retro compatibility that can't be changed to prevent it to stop working on very old systems.
Things like multi-cpu support for it are almost inexistent, their journal is outsite the main meta-data structure (is a special system hidden file), their index support is a strange system that only work with inodes (can't index dentrys or organize they in a b-tree) when there are more than 100 in same dir and a lot of other things that can't be implemented or implemented in right way.
That the why the most distribution are changing or considering to change their default FS to XFS or BTRFS and placing the EXT4 as an optional one. So I know that are important to keep the support for it, but I don't belive that is better is focus on it like was happen in ploop.
Quote:- openvz isn't switching it's focus to ploop now... it seems to me that this has happened a good while ago. IMHO, this change in vzcWhen I said that the EXT4 are deprecated is becouse it's is a 20 years old filesystem, very stable and useful, but full of restrictions and limitations of the old main structure of the EXT2 retro compatibility that can't be chaged to prevent it to stop working on very old systems.
Things like multi-cpu support for it are almost inexistent, their journal is outsite the main meta-data structure (is a special system hidden file), their index support is a strange system that only work with inodes (can't index dentrys or organize they in a b-tree) when there are more than 100 in same dir and a lot of other things that can't be implemented or implemented in right way.
That the why the most distribution are changing or considering to change their default FS to XFS or BTRFS and placing the EXT4 as an optional one. So I know that are important to keep the support for it, but I don't belive that is better is focus on it like was happen in ploop.tl default settings is just the culmination of the development effort, meant to gather more ploop users quickly.
Sorry but I still belive when you change something to default is because you want that more people use it so you can make more focus on it.
Quote:That being said, I would love if openvz could support simfs on more than just EXT4. Having a valid choice between ZFS, BtrFS, XFS or EXT4 would be great. But I gess it's just too much work.
The SIMFS already support all other FS. The only thing that misses is a vzctl-core support for BTRFS advanced features like snapshots, send/recive, qgroups.... But I know that is early to work on this because the RHEL 7 not even is released yet. This is just an idea for the near future as alternative to use the ploop features with simfs. (like already happen with LVM (but the LVM solution is terrible!!!)).
The main fact that I'm saying is: change the ploop to the default was a wrong decision, it's still lacks support for new FSs both for hardnode and for the VM and these supports can solve most of their problems.
Sorry for my bad english
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
