Re: What FileSystems for large stores and very very large stores?

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:15 PM, James A. Peltier <jpeltier@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> | Is the (snicker) from the slow development or do you think the goals
> | are impossible?    Btrfs on top of ceph sounds as good as a
> | posix-looking fs could get.
>
> I don't like to start flame wars so lets just say that I think the limitations imposed on btrfs from a design perspective were such that I don't think there is a chance that it will ever get the capabilities of the file system that it is trying to compete against (ZFS).  There is a reason that the ZFS developers decided to toss out years of experience in file systems and start over.  The overhead and limitations of the traditional methods just didn't cut it.

I just think it is sad that the linux kernel license prohibits
distribution with 'best-of-breed' components...   But conceptually,
distributing the block storage seems like a good idea and zfs embeds a
lot of the block device management.

--
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos