| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Thanks Rich, I have been reading your posts about btrfs with interest, but |
| 4 |
> have not yet used it on my systems. Is btrfs agreeable with SSDs, or should I |
| 5 |
> be using f2fs: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Btrfs will auto-detect SSDs and optimize itself differently, and is |
| 9 |
generally considered to be fine on SSDs. Of course, btrfs itself is |
| 10 |
experimental and may eat your data, especially if you get it too full, |
| 11 |
but you'll be no worse off for running it on an SSD. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I doubt you'll find any general-purpose filesystem that works as well |
| 14 |
overall on an SSD as something like f2fs as this is log-based and |
| 15 |
designed with SSDs in mind. However, f2fs is also very immature and |
| 16 |
also carries risks, and the last time I checked it was missing some |
| 17 |
features like xattrs as well. It also doesn't have anything like |
| 18 |
btrfs send to serialize your data. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
zfs on linux might be another option. I don't know how well it |
| 21 |
handles SSDs in general, and you have to fuss with FUSE and a boot |
| 22 |
partition as I don't think grub supports it - it could be a bit of a |
| 23 |
PITA for a single-drive system. However, it is probably more mature |
| 24 |
than btrfs overall, and it certainly supports send. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I just had a btrfs near-miss which caused me to rethink how I'm |
| 27 |
managing my own storage. I was half-tempted to blog on it - it is a |
| 28 |
bit frustrating as I believe we're right in the middle of the shift |
| 29 |
between the traditional filesystems and the next-generation ones. |
| 30 |
Sticking with the old means giving up a lot of potential benefits, but |
| 31 |
there are a lot of issues with jumping ship as well as the new systems |
| 32 |
all lack maturity or are not feature-complete yet. I was looking at |
| 33 |
f2fs, btrfs, and zfs again this weekend and the issues I struggle with |
| 34 |
are the immaturity of btrfs and f2fs, the lack of working parity raid |
| 35 |
on btrfs, the lack of many features on f2fs, and the inability to |
| 36 |
resize vdevs on zfs which means on a system with few drives you get |
| 37 |
locked in. I suspect all of those will change in time, but not yet! |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Rich |
Archives