4 ms·

Any comparison to BTRFS? I am using BTRFS in place of Zfs because it had a problem with Zfs moubts

by v3ss0n 3y ago

candiddevmike 3y ago
Both are CoW filesystems with different strengths and weaknesses. BTRFS is part of the kernel, has interesting integrations with systemd (and possibly better Linux tooling in general), and has more flexibility with adding and removing disks (for now). ZFS has (arguably) better reliability and has more built-in features like encryption, read/write caching, and exposing virtual volumes. I don't think folks should default to using one or the other, everything depends on your workloads. Ext4 might even be the best choice. Though bcachefs could be an "endgame FS" if it delivers on its promises.
doublepg23 3y ago
I’ve come around to using btrfs as basically ext4++ but ZFS is head and shoulders a better product. This article is somewhat outdated but the author is knowledgeable on the subject https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linuxs-perpetually-half-finished-filesystem/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu...
- Avamander 3y ago
  ZFS doesn't integrate with Linux' page cache well though. That's quite a large negative IMO.
  - keep_reading 3y ago
    But the reworked ARC implementation in here now will help a lot
throw0101b 3y ago
> Any comparison to BTRFS? ZFS RAID is production quality and safe to use. Not the case with Btrfs: * https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid56-status-and-recommended-practices https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid5... Certainly striping-mirroring will give you more IOps, but if you want more space efficiency for bulk storage, RAID-y solutions is probably better. ZFS has been in production use since Solaris 10u2 (June 2006), so we're approaching twenty years of it being banged on.
- Fnoord 3y ago
  > ZFS RAID is production quality and safe to use. Not the case with Btrfs Btrfs works and has worked fine for RAID0 and RAID1. It is specifically RAID5, RAID6, et al. That said, I prefer ZFS (we'll see what happens when bcachefs is merged), though Synology DSM doesn't offer it and it can be a PITA to not being able to run latest Linux kernel. Especially (solely?) on a rolling distro I didn't like that. There's drivers for both to run under Windows btw.
n8henrie 3y ago
I use both, for different use cases. The flexibility of BTRFS is hard to beat, I've yet to have a single data loss issue (5ish years, multiple machines), and for low resource systems (like an RPi3) it's a great choice. I have to say as a Linux user I find the ZFS tooling surprisingly difficult, and I've had far more issues with Linux on ZFS root than BTRFS. YMMV. On my one BSD machine I currently have a usb-attached zpool that seems completely frozen in spite of reboots for over a week -- all zpool and zfs commands hang indefinitely with no output (even though the machine is otherwise working fine). No idea what to make of that, was working fine for 3+ years previously. That said, people far more knowledgeable than me far prefer ZFS, so I keep my really important long-term storage and backups on a RAIDZ2 array.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Any comparison to BTRFS? I am using BTRFS in place of Zfs because it had a problem with Zfs moubts

by v3ss0n 3y ago

Any comparison to BTRFS? I am using BTRFS in place of Zfs because it had a problem with Zfs moubts

Both are CoW filesystems with different strengths and weaknesses. BTRFS is part of the kernel, has interesting integrations with systemd (and possibly better Linux tooling in general), and has more flexibility with adding and removing disks (for now). ZFS has (arguably) better reliability and has more built-in features like encryption, read/write caching, and exposing virtual volumes. I don't think folks should default to using one or the other, everything depends on your workloads. Ext4 might even be the best choice. Though bcachefs could be an "endgame FS" if it delivers on its promises.

doublepg23 3y ago

I’ve come around to using btrfs as basically ext4++ but ZFS is head and shoulders a better product. This article is somewhat outdated but the author is knowledgeable on the subject https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linuxs-perpetually-half-finished-filesystem/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/09/examining-btrfs-linu...

Avamander 3y ago
ZFS doesn't integrate with Linux' page cache well though. That's quite a large negative IMO.
- keep_reading 3y ago
  But the reworked ARC implementation in here now will help a lot

throw0101b 3y ago

> Any comparison to BTRFS? ZFS RAID is production quality and safe to use. Not the case with Btrfs: * https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid56-status-and-recommended-practices https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid5... Certainly striping-mirroring will give you more IOps, but if you want more space efficiency for bulk storage, RAID-y solutions is probably better. ZFS has been in production use since Solaris 10u2 (June 2006), so we're approaching twenty years of it being banged on.

Fnoord 3y ago
> ZFS RAID is production quality and safe to use. Not the case with Btrfs Btrfs works and has worked fine for RAID0 and RAID1. It is specifically RAID5, RAID6, et al. That said, I prefer ZFS (we'll see what happens when bcachefs is merged), though Synology DSM doesn't offer it and it can be a PITA to not being able to run latest Linux kernel. Especially (solely?) on a rolling distro I didn't like that. There's drivers for both to run under Windows btw.

n8henrie 3y ago

I use both, for different use cases. The flexibility of BTRFS is hard to beat, I've yet to have a single data loss issue (5ish years, multiple machines), and for low resource systems (like an RPi3) it's a great choice. I have to say as a Linux user I find the ZFS tooling surprisingly difficult, and I've had far more issues with Linux on ZFS root than BTRFS. YMMV. On my one BSD machine I currently have a usb-attached zpool that seems completely frozen in spite of reboots for over a week -- all zpool and zfs commands hang indefinitely with no output (even though the machine is otherwise working fine). No idea what to make of that, was working fine for 3+ years previously. That said, people far more knowledgeable than me far prefer ZFS, so I keep my really important long-term storage and backups on a RAIDZ2 array.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]