On 01/17/2012 02:36 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> On 01/17/2012 09:29 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>> From: Nataraj Sent: January 16, 2012 23:56
>>> The ZFSonlinux project from LLNL looks promising (native mode kernel
>>> implementation, pool version 28), although the version that supports
>>> mountable filesystems is still in the RC stage. I would want
>>> some solid
>>> testing before deploying in a backup system.
>>>
>>> http://zfsonlinux.org/
>> Hi Nataraj:
>>
>> Thanks. I had not seen this one. It does look more promising than the
>> zfs-fuse package.
>>
> As much as I could deduce, Btrfs outperforms ZFS, and it is at the
> moment only missing btrfsck (in development). And it supports (almost)
> all features.
>
> I was really hot for ZFS, but I have seen one thorough test with various
> sizes of data and in some cases Btrfs outperformed ZFS, but I cleaned my
> Firefox cache and history for the first time in at least a year :( and I
> can not find it now.
>
> Btrfs is pushed and sponsored by Oracle, for their uses, and since ZFS
> is also theirs, I guess they will implement all ZFS's good featuries.
>
>
Is btrfs widely deployed and running solidly in production
environments? I thought the dedup code for btrfs was still a bunch of
patches that had to be applied and not in the mainstream implementation
yet. The LLNL zfs port is a loadable kernel module.
Nataraj
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
