| 1 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:43:12 +0100, lee wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> The relevant advantage of btrfs is being able to make snapshots. Is |
| 4 |
> >> that worth all the (potential) trouble? Snapshots are worthless when |
| 5 |
> >> the file system destroys them with the rest of the data. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > You forgot the data checksumming. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Not at all, I'm seeing it as an advantage, especially when you want to |
| 10 |
> store large amounts of data. Since I don't trust btrfs with that, I'm |
| 11 |
> using ZFS. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
You already have snapshots with ZFS. If you're happy with it, keep using |
| 14 |
it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > If you use hardware RAID then btrfs |
| 17 |
> > only sees a single disk. It can still warn you of corrupt data but it |
| 18 |
> > cannot fix it because it only has the one copy. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> or it corrupts the data itself ;) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Well, any filesystem is capable of that, and anybody is capable of making |
| 23 |
vague comments about it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I switched from ZFS to btrfs a while ago. ZFS is more mature, but the |
| 26 |
licensing issues and the lack of recent source code mean it isn't really |
| 27 |
going anywhere whereas btrfs is in the kernel and under active |
| 28 |
development. If you're already using ZFS and happy with it, you are |
| 29 |
probably better off sticking with it for now. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
The trouble with life is that you are halfway through it before you |
| 36 |
realize it's a "do it yourself" thing. |
Archives