| 1 |
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 07:06:24 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> btrfs isn't horrible, but it basically hasn't been optimized at all. |
| 4 |
> The developers are mainly focused on getting it to not destroy your |
| 5 |
> data, with mixed success. An obvious example of this is that if you |
| 6 |
> read a file from a pair of mirrors, the filesystem decides which drive |
| 7 |
> in the pair to use based on whether the PID doing the read is even or |
| 8 |
> odd. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Fundamentally I haven't seen any arguments as to why btrfs should be |
| 11 |
> any worse than zfs. It just hasn't been implemented completely. But, |
| 12 |
> if you want a filesystem today and not in 10 years you need to take |
| 13 |
> that into account. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I switched from ZFS to btrfs a few years ago when it appeared that ZFS |
| 16 |
wasn't really going anywhere while btrfs was under active development. It |
| 17 |
looks like I backed the wrong horse and should investigate switching back. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
C&W music backward: get yer dog, wife, job, truck, kids, and sobriety |
| 24 |
back. |
Archives