4 ms·
Since ZFS does not really have the concept sub-volumes like btrfs it does not suffer from it.
by Deeg9rie9usi 5y ago
Since ZFS does not really have the concept sub-volumes like btrfs it does not suffer from it.
- magicalhippo 5y agoI'm no expert so maybe I'm missing something. To me it seems that ZFS snapshots represents a similar challenge[1] given that the snapshots can be accessed through the .zfs directory, and that ZFS also plays tricks[2] with the inodes. [1]: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/819-5461/gbiqe/index.html https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/819-5461/gbiqe/index.ht... [2]: http://mikeboers.com/blog/2019/02/21/zfs-inode-generations http://mikeboers.com/blog/2019/02/21/zfs-inode-generations
- rincebrain 5y agoThey're always explicit mounts on ZFS. (Even the .zfs directory triggers mounting on access of things under snapshot/.)
- AndrewDavis 5y agoAs a tangent, what's interesting is whether `mount` shows the mountpoint. If you cd into a snapshot on FreeBSD it does not get listed in calls to `mount` but does on ZoL. edit: i have not tested this since FreeBSD rebased on ZoL
- speed_spread 5y agoBTRFS has volumes/subvolumes while ZFS has pools/filesystems. I suspect they have considerably different implementations but the userspace implications are similar.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y agoHow is a BTRFS sub volume different from a ZFS child dataset/filesystem?