3 ms·
Care to substantiate that statement? It seems rather arbitrary to just say that it's garbage when it is running and has been running successfully for the vast m
by leansensei 2y ago
Care to substantiate that statement? It seems rather arbitrary to just say that it's garbage when it is running and has been running successfully for the vast majority of its users. It also offers two features that ZFS does not: the ability to grow a pool, and offline duplication.
- swinglock 2y agoDoes it even have RAID5?
- ZhongXina 2y agoWhy should it matter? It's an extremely niche technology that's only interesting to some home users. I see no reasons why other users should care about a RAID level they're not interested in. (I don't use btrfs or any other COW filesystem because of significantly worse performance with some kinds of workloads, but it has nothing to do with maturity of any of them.)
- throw0101c 2y ago> Why should it matter? It's an extremely niche technology that's only interesting to some home users. I use RAID-Z2 in lots of places for bulk storages purposes (HPC). There's a reason why Ceph added erasure coding: * https://ceph.io/en/news/blog/2017/new-luminous-erasure-coding-rbd-cephfs/ https://ceph.io/en/news/blog/2017/new-luminous-erasure-codin... * https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/operations/erasure-code/ https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/operations/erasure-cod... When you're talking about PB of data, storage efficiencies add up.
- greenavocado 2y agoWtf? This is a bizzare take. Facebook poured in millions of dollars of R&D into btrfs.
- riku_iki 2y agobut they likely put money into features which they are interested in, and not raid56
- greenavocado 2y agoYes but you will lose data if you are writing to your array when the power goes out. RAIDZ (ZFS) does not have this problem. See BTRFS RAID5 write hole.
- paulmd 2y agoBased on the reports of corruption and data loss from actual users, I don’t think this claim is true at all.