1 |
Stefan G. Weichinger <lists@×××××.at> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Am 16.05.2014 14:03, schrieb Neil Bothwick: |
4 |
> > On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:14:27 -0400, covici@××××××××××.com wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> >> So far, I have liked lvm, what's the advantage of btrfs over |
7 |
> >> lvm? |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > I have only looked at btrfs, with a consideration for switching |
10 |
> > from ZFS, but it seems to offer the same advantages as ZFS. That |
11 |
> > is, it makes things even easier than LVM does. with LVM you can |
12 |
> > easily resize volumes and the filesystems on them, but it is still |
13 |
> > two or three steps, more if you add RAID into the equation. The |
14 |
> > modern filesystems do it all at once. If you need a bigger var, you |
15 |
> > just tell it so. And it is exactly the same process for shrinking a |
16 |
> > volume, something that can be tricky with LVM because of the need |
17 |
> > to handle volume and filesystem separately. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> btrfs and zfs are removing the various layers we all had to deal with: |
20 |
> |
21 |
> partitions, logical volumes, raid-arrays, filesystems, and then |
22 |
> snapshots etc. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> With these modern filesystems you are able to basically say: |
25 |
> |
26 |
> "I have these physical devices/disks, create me a pool of storage with |
27 |
> these properties" and then just use that pool in a flexible and |
28 |
> dynamic way. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Your disk based storage is then usable in a way RAM is, you add it and |
31 |
> it is available and you can then use it where you like it. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> No (or let's say "much less" ...) fixed and hard barriers like |
34 |
> partition sizes, if you need space for /var, use it ... if you want to |
35 |
> set quotas on /home, just set them for the subvolume, if you add |
36 |
> another pair of harddisks, tell btrfs to redistribute redundancy |
37 |
> information ("re-balance"). |
38 |
> |
39 |
> (I see that Alan right now answered basically the same ;-) ). |
40 |
> |
41 |
> You get checksums for your blocks and the possibility to repair rotted |
42 |
> blocks ... you get snapshots within the filesystem, no more slow |
43 |
> rsnapshot-crontabs ... |
44 |
> |
45 |
> I used zfs-fuse back then and learned about the concepts, and it blew |
46 |
> my mind already years ago ;-) |
47 |
> |
48 |
> zfs on linux ... it works fine for me on one server, but I never |
49 |
> really wanted it on my main machines (desktop and laptops) although I |
50 |
> once even wrote some "how to use zfs on your fully encrypted laptop" |
51 |
> for a magazine. It always feels like "suboptimal because it is not in |
52 |
> the kernel" to me (think licensing issues here). |
53 |
> |
54 |
> btrfs is officially in the kernel, still marked "experimental" because |
55 |
> it is in active development, after all I read over the last days it |
56 |
> should be quite stable to use if you don't run very complex setups or |
57 |
> so ... and doing regular backups should be usual for the people in |
58 |
> this list, I assume? Distros like SLES come with btrfs as default fs |
59 |
> (soon). |
60 |
> |
61 |
> I migrated ~3 machines to btrfs in the last days and I really love |
62 |
> getting rid of all the partitions and raids that grew over the years |
63 |
> ... for now it is cleaned up and flexible and so far solid. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> btrfs and zfs have different concepts for various aspects, but |
66 |
> basically the same goals. I definitely recommend to get in touch with |
67 |
> this generation of filesystems. |
68 |
|
69 |
Thanks much for that explanation. |
70 |
|
71 |
So where do I find some documentation for btrfs and its user space tools? |
72 |
-- |
73 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
74 |
How do |
75 |
you spend it? |
76 |
|
77 |
John Covici |
78 |
covici@××××××××××.com |