4 ms·
What is the reason it cannot be 'supported' anyway? It clearly was possible. BTRFS has been mainlined for nearly as long as EXT4, and incurs no particular overh
by brnt 6y ago
What is the reason it cannot be 'supported' anyway? It clearly was possible. BTRFS has been mainlined for nearly as long as EXT4, and incurs no particular overheads compared to EXT4.
- izacus 6y agoWhatever reason they chose to not support btrfs on their cheap ARM models. Might be stability, might just be pure market segmentation.
- mopsi 6y agoCheapest models have insufficient RAM for btrfs.
- brnt 6y agoIt does not require more ram than ext4 in the configurations that DSM provides.
- op00to 6y agoSource? How about cpu capabilities? Were they tested?
- brnt 6y agoYou're making the claim ;) The main thing an fs is, is a layout for data on disk after all, no mainline fs will do this in a way that is particularly consumptive of resources. Specific features like RAID and deduplication are known to add to RAM and CPU requirements. Synology uses BTRFS for neither, so any performance differences are almost certainly not due to the specific fs. I also have not seen any evidence of perf diffs.
- josephcsible 6y agoIf that were the case, then why did btrfs work perfectly on them all until this update?