4 ms·
It's not as compelling to write about positive experiences. The main competitor to btrfs is zfs, which is harder to set up, arguably more complex and has licen
by solarkraft 6y ago
It's not as compelling to write about positive experiences.
The main competitor to btrfs is zfs, which is harder to set up, arguably more complex and has licensing issues so you can't really ship things with it built in.
I like zfs on my server, but am also happy with btrfs on my laptop.
- NavinF 6y agoZFS is not harder to set up imo. It's as easy as `sudo apt install zfsutils-linux` and `zpool create poolname raidz2 disk1 disk2 disk3` I've been bitten by btrfs back when it was the new hot FS, so I'll just stick to ZFS until a distributed (multiple machines) equivalent of ZFS comes along.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago> until a distributed (multiple machines) equivalent of ZFS comes along. Ceph?
- yokem55 6y agoThat's exactly what they want. It's got all the checksummed replication features that makes zfs awesome and it's pretty rock solid. It's even pretty resilient to dumb mistakes from the admin (ahem). Unfortunately ceph is primarily developed for folks running massive petabyte scale clusters, so setting up a home lab micro-cluster is still a fair bit more difficult than it needs to be, even with the new cephadm stuff. To wit, figuring out what the best practices for setting things up to run a small scale cluster is often guesswork and the pitfalls aren't always obvious.
- patrakov 6y agoI work (well, until January) for a company that specializes in Ceph support. And it is depressing to see how many customers have crashing OSDs or MDSs, or unexplainabe memory overuse problems. It looks much worse than btrfs. I don't want this at home. But, to be fair, for every distributed storage system (even as simple as DRBD), there is be a person who had extremely negative experience with it.