4 ms·
It's kind of a garbage filesystem though. HN gets all bent out of shape about minor differences between btrfs and zfs. Like how zfs supports raid5/6 but btrfs
by nwallin 6y ago
It's kind of a garbage filesystem though.
HN gets all bent out of shape about minor differences between btrfs and zfs. Like how zfs supports raid5/6 but btrfs raid5/6 support is immature. Meanwhile NTFS doesn't even support checksumming, multiple block devices, copy on write, the performance on SSDs is garbage, etc etc.
- Dylan16807 6y agoAt least that 'garbage' hasn't died on me like the majority of my BTRFS partitions have. (Thankfully they all mostly still worked in read-only mode.)
- chasil 6y agoThe whole of the NT kernel was essentially a futurized implementation of VAX-VMS. Both VMS and NT had the same manager, in the person of Dave Cutler. Microsoft hired a large team away from DEC to build NT (which became the subject of litigation from DEC). I have read that NTFS shares common architecture with Files-11/ODS-2&5 (native VMS filesystems). Aspects were also lifted from OS/2. ZFS was developed a decade after NTFS. Most UNIX was still on FFS when NTFS was born. https://wikimili.com/en/Files-11 https://wikimili.com/en/Files-11
- p_l 6y agoExt2 was AFAIK a FFS-style design.