4 ms·
I use btrfs, and the main reason I don't consider zfs instead is that zfs doesn't use the regular linux fs page cache. That and the fact that I use latest mainl
by accelbred 6y ago
I use btrfs, and the main reason I don't consider zfs instead is that zfs doesn't use the regular linux fs page cache. That and the fact that I use latest mainline kernel, so dont want to have to deal with kernel updates breaking zfs or tanking its performance, as when it lost access to the simd functions. The main feature I would want from zfs would be tiering, which can be gotten from btrfs on bcache, which is what I will likely use in the future. I think there was some issue with adding disks in zfs too? Don't exactly remember about that.
- hardwaresofton 6y agoThanks for sharing -- looks like zfs still doesn't support tiering and just has the ARC and using SLOG for similar functionality... And yeah, ZFS can't be expanded willy-nilly, found a good blog post with someone's adventures that was illuminating[0]. [0]: https://markmcb.com/2020/01/07/five-years-of-btrfs/ https://markmcb.com/2020/01/07/five-years-of-btrfs/
- 3np 6y agoIt sounds like you're mixing up SLOG and L2ARC. How is ARC/L2ARC/base dataset not tiered?
- hardwaresofton 6y agoah I did mix this up -- thanks for pointing that out
- 3np 6y agoThe fact that it doesn't use the page cache is one of the top reasons why I love zfs - it can do a lot smarter decisions (MRU+LRU instead of just LRU) and integrate it with L2ARC. Of course it depends a lot on your read/write patterns what impact this has, though. On adding disks, I don't know if that's what you're referring to, but you can't add new disks to an existing RAIDZ. Personally I've only used mirrors and single-device vdevs so far, haven't seen any need for RAIDZ.