3 ms·

Its nowhere near ZFS/HAMMER/BTRFS ... Check their FAQ here: https://stratis-storage.github.io/faq/ https://stratis-storage.github.io/faq/ In short: In terms

Its nowhere near ZFS/HAMMER/BTRFS ... Check their FAQ here: https://stratis-storage.github.io/faq/ https://stratis-storage.github.io/faq/ In short: In terms of its design, Stratis is very different from ZFS/BTRFS, since they are both in-kernel filesystems. Stratis is a userspace daemon that configures and monitors existing components from Linux’s device-mapper subsystem, as well as the XFS filesystem. Red Hat move seems very strange here because it would be better just to hire several BTRFS developers and join the BTRFS Linux ecosystem instead of writing something new ... I still do not know what for ...

InvaderFizz 7y ago
> it would be better just to hire several BTRFS developers and join the BTRFS Linux ecosystem instead of writing something new I found this previous discussion rather enlightening on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907771
cmurf 7y ago
They have a bunch of device-mapper, LVM, and XFS developers on staff though. So I don't think it's strange they're leveraging the people they already have. In a sense they are hedging their bets. From their perspective, if Btrfs pans out by community effort, then Red Hat can change their minds yet again and support it. And if it Stratis pans out better, in particular as it relates to support contracts, then at least they got a product they can ship and support. The open stratis question for me is, with so many layers it depends on, how are bugs going to get handled? And how fail safe will it really be when there are problems? And what do repairs entail, and how long do they take on large volumes? What sorts of goofy unexpected edge cases will users run into, and how long will it take to find workarounds and permanent fixes? Is it really offering both the general Linux community, including even Fedora in particular, something they'll really want? And I don't know the answer to any of that. I have no idea if it'll see widespread adoption like LVM has.

InvaderFizz 7y ago

> it would be better just to hire several BTRFS developers and join the BTRFS Linux ecosystem instead of writing something new I found this previous discussion rather enlightening on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907771

cmurf 7y ago

They have a bunch of device-mapper, LVM, and XFS developers on staff though. So I don't think it's strange they're leveraging the people they already have. In a sense they are hedging their bets. From their perspective, if Btrfs pans out by community effort, then Red Hat can change their minds yet again and support it. And if it Stratis pans out better, in particular as it relates to support contracts, then at least they got a product they can ship and support. The open stratis question for me is, with so many layers it depends on, how are bugs going to get handled? And how fail safe will it really be when there are problems? And what do repairs entail, and how long do they take on large volumes? What sorts of goofy unexpected edge cases will users run into, and how long will it take to find workarounds and permanent fixes? Is it really offering both the general Linux community, including even Fedora in particular, something they'll really want? And I don't know the answer to any of that. I have no idea if it'll see widespread adoption like LVM has.