4 ms·
> Also, BTRFS (albeit a modified version) has been used successfully in at least one commercial NAS (Synology), for many years. I don't see how that counts as "
by mustache_kimono 3y ago
> Also, BTRFS (albeit a modified version) has been used successfully in at least one commercial NAS (Synology), for many years. I don't see how that counts as "gone nowhere".
Excuse me for sounding glib. My point was btrfs isn't considered a serious competitor to ZFS in many of the spaces ZFS operates. Moreover, it's inability to do RAID5/6 after years of effort is just weird now.
- PlutoIsAPlanet 3y agoraid1c2, raid1c3 and raid1c4 will get you close to RAID5/6 on btrfs (in terms of redundancy), albeit with tad less disk space, but still more than normal raid 1. > ZFS in many of the spaces ZFS operates not a lot.
- mustache_kimono 3y ago>> My point was btrfs isn't considered a serious competitor to ZFS in many of the spaces ZFS operates. > raid1c2, raid1c3 and raid1c4 will get you close > not a lot. I guess I just don't understand this take. btrfs doesn't do what ZFS does, and still isn't as reliable as ZFS is. When it is, maybe I'll take another look. But this is really the problem with btrfs stans -- they've been saying it's ready, when it's not, for years. Fix the small stuff. Make it reliable. Quit making promises about how it's as good as ZFS, when it's clear it doesn't do all the things ZFS does, just some of the things most of the time.
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y agoYears of effort is a stretch, nobody serious (read: who's willing to pay for it) has been working on raid5/6 pretty much since its inception (since nobody serious needs raid 5/6 at all). Western Digital promised to fix it a couple of years ago, but there doesn't seem to be much progress since then.