| 1 |
On Tue, 5 May 2015 06:56:20 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > I don't know about btrfs, seems like it's still in a testing-phase so |
| 4 |
> > i'm not touching it yet. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> My understanding is that both zfs and btrfs on linux are fairly |
| 7 |
> experimental. The codebase for zfs is much more mature in general, |
| 8 |
> though its integration on Linux is recent. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It's also based on an older version of ZFS, so we can expect stability to |
| 11 |
improve where necessary, but little in the way of new features |
| 12 |
(unless that has changed since I last used it and Sun have open sourced a |
| 13 |
later release). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The codebase for btrfs |
| 16 |
> changes rapidly, with quite a few regressions. I've never |
| 17 |
> irrecoverably lost data on btrfs, but it wouldn't be my first choice |
| 18 |
> for a production environment unless I basically did my own QC on the |
| 19 |
> kernel. However, all my important data is on btrfs nonetheless (with |
| 20 |
> a full backup to ext4 daily right now). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I have a similar approach, although with duplicity backups to a file |
| 23 |
server. I have had a couple of problems with btrfs on my laptop, |
| 24 |
connected with unclean shutdowns. I didn't lose any data but the repair |
| 25 |
process took a *long* time. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The considered application of terror is also a form of communication. |
Archives