From btrfs Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

duperemove not universally available.

The article should note that duperemove isn't available for all platforms all the time. If this means it is appropriate to 'revert' to bedup, noting so (this wiki article being the 'expert') would be useful.

Also, it would be worth mentioning that Ubuntu has a ppa for it / duperemove does not come with btrfs-tools (else one keeps hunting for what one doesn't have, and the new user will be baffled.)

Per it would be useful to note that exists, albeit only for trusty (14.04) or later.

Bill S. (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like too much distro-specific for this wiki. We had pages with distro information but removed them because nobody kept them up to date. We/you can add links to other wikis of course. --Kdave (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, fair statement, except, don't forget: The article should note that duperemove isn't available for all platforms all the time. Perhaps kernel version sensitive, which could be mentioned, if so. The impetus for the talk entry was chasing my tail for some time for a duperemove that doesn't exist (for my system). A note that it isn't available for all platforms all of the time would have saved me some time chasing my tail for something the wiki essentially implies is always present.

Bill S. (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The README for duperemove states the requirement "Kernel: Duperemove needs a kernel version equal to or greater than 3.13". Does this explain why it wasn't available for your system? If so, then the wiki is probably fine, though adding something like "Requires kernel 3.13" certainly wouldn't be bad. Bobpaul (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
However, since the README is inaccessible, not being in the repos at the time / that kernel version ... (-: Noting that duperemove isn't available for all platforms all the time, would be useful. Including e.g. '"Requires kernel 3.13" certainly wouldn't be bad.' And if this means it is appropriate to 'revert' to bedup in such cases, noting so would be useful. One of the things I eventually found, not obvious to earlier version distro users, was just how much btrfs evolution has taken place over time. For example, simply moving a system from 12.04LTS to 14.04LTS gained 3.12, and a whole lot of btrfs goodies in the process. I guess part of what I'm saying is ... no doubt such is documented elsewhere, but it wasn't where I was able to notice it at the time. Noting such things as minimum kernel version here probably would have been a trigger I actually paid attention to for me (and where) to look deeper, and probably been able to answer the question / not (need to) have posted the talk comments. [i.e. Saving everyone mindspace and time.] In any case ... thanks for the good/useful dialogue here, it's appreciated. Bill S. (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The "Other tools" section is confusing

I'm not sure what this section is trying to say. It mentions "provides a simple way to invoke the deduplication function" but I can't see any reference to that in the provided link to xfs_io. Does this section need to be here or can it be deleted? User:Thomas_d_j Thomas_d_j 23:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That linked manpage is old; I've changed the link to a newer copy. xfs_io has a dedupe subcommand now. I have xfsprogs 4.15 installed and the dedupe subcommand is there. This section could probably be re-worked and maybe retitled. IDK if simply putting xfs_io in the list up above would be a good idea, since I expect people would be confused seeing a tool clearly intended for a different file system on the list. Bobpaul (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Patches links to Re: [RFC PATCH v10 00/16] Online(inband) data deduplication - Liu Bo Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:45:09 -0700

Should it be updated to: [PATCH v14.4 00/15] Btrfs In-band De-duplication - Lu Fengqi Wed, 12 Jul 2017 01:50:53 -0700 ?

Marco_Crociani (talk) 9:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools