1 |
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Nuno Magalhães <nunomagalhaes@××××××.pt> wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On the other hand, both btrfs and zfs will get you a level of data |
4 |
>> security that you simply won't get from ext4+lvm+mdadm - protection |
5 |
>> from silent corruption. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> That's one of the advantages i see in ZFS. Do you use it frequently? |
8 |
> Can anyone comment on its memory usage (without dedicated SSDs for |
9 |
> ARC)? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Maybe i'd use the 4 drives as a ZFS pool. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> For now LVM complains about duplicate PVs (when pvcreate /dev/md0), |
14 |
> i'll have to fiddle with the filters in lvm.conf |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
I use btrfs heavily, but not ZFS. The feature set overlaps, but ZFS |
18 |
has more enterprise-oriented features and is more mature, and btrfs |
19 |
has more single-workstation-oriented features and is less mature. For |
20 |
example, ZFS has features like write-intent logging and read caching |
21 |
that are useful especially on large arrays. Btrfs, on the other hand, |
22 |
lets you mix different-sized drive in a single redundancy unit or |
23 |
add/remove devices to a single redundancy unit, while in ZFS you can |
24 |
have multiple vdevs in a zpool but you cannot add/remove drives from a |
25 |
vdev or fully utilize drives of different sizes in a vdev. That is |
26 |
something which is very useful when you have a 3-drive RAID and want |
27 |
to make it a 4-drive RAID, but it isn't terribly useful when you want |
28 |
to add 5 drives to a 30-drive SAN. |
29 |
|
30 |
I'm not sure how many of those differences are design-limitations vs |
31 |
just being what devs have spent their time on. I'm sure over time the |
32 |
feature set of both will grow and further overlap each other. |
33 |
However, right now with the current focus I'd expect ZFS to continue |
34 |
to focus on features useful in very large deployments, and btrfs on |
35 |
features useful in small deployments. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Rich |