Most comments suggesting btrfs were justifying it for the possibility of rolling back to a previous state of files when something breaks (not a btrfs breakage, but mishaps on the system requiring an "undo").
jsveiga
joined 2 years ago
Multiple casualties? In a war? How come?
Bacon Reader Premium
O use ext4 at home and in servers that are not SLES HANA DB ones.
On SLES HANA servers I use ext4 for everything but the database partitions, for which SAP and SUSE support and recommend XFS.
In a few occasions people left the non-db partitions as the default on SUSE install, btrfs, with default settings. That turned out to cause unnecessary disk and processor usage.
I would be ashamed of justifying btrfs on a server for the possibility of undoing "broken things". Maybe in a distro hopping, system tinkering, unstable release home computer, but not in a server. You don't play around in a server to "break things" that often. Linux (differently from Windows) servers don't break themselves at the software level. For hardware breakages, there's RAID, backups, and HA reduntant systems, because if it's a hardware issue btrfs isn't going to save you - even if you get back that corrupted file, you won't keep running in that hardware, nor trust that "this" was the only and last file it corrupted.
EDIT: somewhat offtopic: I never use LVM. Call me paranoid and old fashioned, but I really prefer knowing where my data is, whole.
Yep, that's the agenda; it's the vegan agenda disguised in an environmental piece.
If it was purely environmental, it wouldn't group "meat" and "vegetables" in a naive way like that.
The vegan agenda shows when they crumple everything animal under "meat" and everything vegetable under "vegan", when there are some vegan foods that have higher cost to the environment to be produced than some animal products, when comparing nutrition to nutrition values.
Instead of going vegan or not having kids, I died when I was 5. Because living also creates more greenhouse gasses.
In fact, having a small footprint is just a matter of choosing how miserable you're willing to make your life.
Unfortunately the Earth cannot sustainably support so many people living COMFORTABLY, and eating WHATEVER WE LIKE. The more people, the more miserable is the globally sustainable way of life.
Curbing population growth - not Thanos-like, but through education and availability of contraceptive methods - is the only way we can all have the cake (and the meat) and eat it.
Many wealthy countries have their population declining. Maybe if we get to the same level of wealthiness everywhere, less people would engage in procreation.
In any case, if we just do nothing and the doomsday evangelists are even nearly right, extreme weather, plage and famine caused by climate change will indeed curb the population. Eventually it reaches equilibrium.
In this case, the faster we get to the edge of the abyss, the quicker the situation will solve itself.
Some people just can't let go. They break up, but stalk their ex on social media for the rest of their lives.
Exactly. A waste of server resources, as a productions server is not tinkerable, and shouldn't "break".