3 ms·
Sure, I can help. That powerpoint is horribly out of date and I'd argue full of FUD (intentional or not). >• Raid 0, 1, 5, and 6 are also built in the filesys
by tw04 6y ago
Sure, I can help. That powerpoint is horribly out of date and I'd argue full of FUD (intentional or not).
>• Raid 0, 1, 5, and 6 are also built in the filesystem
BTRFS RAID has been a nightmare from day 1 including complete data loss. Parity-based RAID has been "just around the corner" for almost a DECADE. Sure you can do RAID-1 but in 2020 I'm just not interested in losing half of my capacity.
Yes you can layer it on top of MDRAID but that eliminates half the elegance of what ZFS brought to the table.
>ZFS is fairly memory hungry, it's recommended to have
16GB of RAM and give 8GB or more to ZFS (it wasn't
designed to use the linux memory filesystem, so it uses its
own memory that can't be shared with the rest of linux).
This is just flat wrong. You need 2GB of memory for a happy filesystem, 8GB+ is if you're doing deduplication which is unnecessary overhead in most environments. I'm also not sure where the "memory that can't be shared with the rest of linux" is coming from - ARC will use and free memory as needed by the system.
>Due to the CDDL being incompatible with GPLv2, a linux vendor or
hardware vendor will never be able to ship a linux distribution or hardware
device using ZFS
Except Ubuntu already is. I believe SLES does as well.
>As a result, you shouldn't plan on using ZFS for any product that you
might ever want to ship one day.
Delphix ships a product today based on ZFS. 0 issues.
>Oracle may have stopped further work on ZFS as a result.
Or it could be another reason entirely...
Oracle absolutely didn't stop work on ZFS, I'm not even sure where he came up with that nonsense. Oracle continued to update and release new versions of ZFS long after the lawsuit was settled.
You know what's far more telling? 13 YEARS after starting BTRFS: Oracle uses ext4 as their default filesystem, not BTRFS. Redhat has dropped support for BTRFS entirely.
https://fossbytes.com/red-hat-deprecate-btrfs-filesystem-stratis/ https://fossbytes.com/red-hat-deprecate-btrfs-filesystem-str...
- gen220 6y agoThank you very much for the play-by-play. This slide deck is from 2015, so I'm willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt, that things have probably changed a lot since then. It seems that the ZFS story has gotten much better since 2015 (FreeBSD & Ubuntu support, memory usage improvements, license problem proving to be not a big problem). Correspondingly, it seems that the btrfs story has regressed (redhat drops support, many issues in this greater thread raised around reliability and use cases, suspect development practices). My guess is that they were closer to parity in 2015. This deck was making the case for why btrfs would win out. The author seemingly turned out to be wrong, as we're all liable to be from time to time. My guess is that the licensing might be an issue for some big corporations today, but it appears to be generally benign, like you say. Thank you so much for the information! :)
- zokula 6y agoZFS sucks do not use it .