Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
> > ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not
>
> Can you quantify this in an impartial format as relevant to CentOS ? At
> the moment your statement is just a rant, and having come across your
> work in the past, I know you can do better than this.
I would not call it a rant but a food for thought.
ZFS was distributed to the public after it turned 4.
ZFS is now in public use since more than 7 years.
What is the age of BTRFS?
The experience with various filesystems tells that it takes 8-10 years to make
a new filesystem mature.
Also the OP did not ask for CentOS, but for a filesystem comparison.
So comparing filesystems seems to be the question. For ZFS, I know that it
took until three years ago to get rid of nasty bugs. At that time, ZFS was 8.
So be careful with BTRFS until it was in wide use for at least 4 years.
ZFS is the best I know for filesystems >= 2 TB and in case you need flexible
snapshots. ZFS has just one single problem, it is slow in case you ask it to
verify a stable FS state, UFS is much faster here, but this ZFS "problem" is
true for all filesystems on Linux because of the implementation of the Linux
buffer cache.
And BTW: ZFS is based on the COW ideas I made in 1988 and the NetApp patents
are also just based on my master thesis without giving me credit ;-)
There are few fs use cases where COW is not the best.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (uni)
joerg.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
