| 1 |
On Fri, 16 May 2014 15:03:43 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > That's why I'm looking at btrfs. ZFS is great, it does all I want |
| 4 |
> > it to. But it is not in the kernel, which is not a major issue. |
| 5 |
> > More important is that it is based on an old version of ZFS, later |
| 6 |
> > versions are still closed source. That's a shame, because they |
| 7 |
> > support neat things like encryption (yet another separate layer got |
| 8 |
> > rid of) and it means ZFS on Linux can't really go anywhere beyond |
| 9 |
> > bug fixes and minor tweaks. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Yes, this way one gets stuck somehow with ZFSonLinux. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> btrfs also does not yet support encryption ... I assume that will come |
| 14 |
> over the time, I don't know if this is still correct: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Project_ideas#Encryption |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If it doesn't happen,. it is still on a par with ZFS on that front. But |
| 19 |
there is always the possibility that someone will want it enough to |
| 20 |
implement it... looks in the general direction of SUSE. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I like the idea of the version of RAID1 they have, where two copies of |
| 23 |
the data are stored, even if you have multiple disks. It looks like it |
| 24 |
should provide RAID5 like capacities without some of the overhead. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I've been moving my ZFS partitions around, which reminded me how good |
| 27 |
zfs send/zfs recv are, so I can give btrfs RAID a good try out soon. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
LISP: Lots of Infuriating & Silly Parentheses |
Archives