| 1 |
On 12 November 2015 00:14:15 CET, "Nuno Magalhães" <nunomagalhaes@××××××.pt> wrote: |
| 2 |
>On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Ralf |
| 3 |
><ralf+gentoo@×××××××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> So I'm |
| 5 |
>> thinking about to migrate to Btrfs. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>Have you considered ZFS? |
| 8 |
>I currently have some disks with {fs}+LVM+RAID1 and others with a ZFS |
| 9 |
>mirror (no extra disks for ARC or anything), both approaches seem |
| 10 |
>manageable. To me btrfs still seems "not-ready-yet", but that's just |
| 11 |
>me. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>Can't offer any real benchmarks, i'm just starting out, but the |
| 14 |
>correct comparison seems to be btrfs vs ZFS, not btrfs vs fs+LVM+RAID. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>Cheers, |
| 17 |
>Nuno |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I think for small amount of disks (around 4) btrfs is a better option. |
| 20 |
For larger amounts (think 10+) ZFS is a better option. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This is based on the design ideas and due to the lack of a robust raid5+ implementation in btrfs. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
ZFS requires more memory to perform well, compared to other filesystems. |
| 25 |
I believe btrfs doesn't have this requirement. I don't have any systems with this yet, but am planning on implementing btrfs on desktops and seevers with small amount of disks. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
For the servers with higher disk-counts, I am planning on implementing ZFS. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Joost |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. |
Archives