4 ms·
My understanding is that btrfs is still in catchup mode for the foreseeable future, but might eventually cover the distance. Has btrfs jumped ahead of zfs in w
by rch 13y ago
My understanding is that btrfs is still in catchup mode for the foreseeable future, but might eventually cover the distance.
Has btrfs jumped ahead of zfs in ways I haven't heard about?
Edit - this is my first search result:
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-...
- midas007 13y agoI'd be biased to agree since that's Manuel's blog, someone I used to work with. I've supported 24x7 and 9x5 ops where downtime was unacceptable. zfs makes it a whole lot easier to perform upgrades, know data and metadata are solid and send snapshots around.
- rch 13y ago> ZFS uses atomic writes and barriers This about settles the question for me. Assuming that the implication that btrfs performs otherwise holds true.
- midas007 13y agoYeah, it depends on the use case. For home directories and large risk items like financial stuff, testing that barrier writes are happening is a good thing. You don't want a storm to knock out a DC to learn that the hw/sw fs stack was lying to you at some level.
- tacticus 13y agoBarriers are also used in btrfs. and from what i can tell clone operations are also handled atomically though i kinda wonder what exactly is meant by atomic writes.
- rch 13y agoThanks for clearing that up. I might have to dig into it a bit more.
- tacticus 13y agothe first parts are right (though i don't know how accurate) and could certainly be improved with tooling. testing will come with time. with raidz sure it's great but the vdevs being immutable is really rather annoying. the way btrfs handles multi device stuff is significantly better (replication is not between 2 devices but closer to the file (it allocates a chunk of space and decides where to put the other replica in the pool). though i wish the erasure coding stuff would land faster. btrfs has had send\receive for a while. I haven't needed to dig into the btrfs man pages yet so can't common on how accurate this is. btrfs also uses barriers log devices and cache devices are awesome. i hope btrfs adds them. the block device thing is a limitation of btrfs and annoys me though i've slowly moved to just having files. (though in anything largish i would probably be moving to a distributed fs anyway) the sharing stuff is good but i think that's a tooling issue not an fs issue. btrfs has an out of band dedup allowing you to run periodic dedup without having the memory penalty of live dedup (though costing disk)