1 |
On Friday, September 19, 2014 10:56:59 AM Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:41 AM, James <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> > I think btrfs has tremendous potential. I tried ZFS a few times, |
4 |
> > but the installs are not part of gentoo, so they got borked |
5 |
> > uEFI, grubs to uuids, etc etc also were in the mix. That was almost |
6 |
> > a year ago. For what ever reason the clustering folks I have |
7 |
> > read and communicated with are using ext4, xfs and btrfs. Prolly |
8 |
> > mostly because those are mostly used in their (systemd) inspired) |
9 |
> > distros....? |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I do think that btrfs in the long-term is more likely to be mainstream |
12 |
> on linux, but I wouldn't be surprised if getting zfs working on Gentoo |
13 |
> is much easier now. Richard Yao is both a Gentoo dev and significant |
14 |
> zfs on linux contributor, so I suspect he is doing much of the latter |
15 |
> on the former. |
16 |
|
17 |
Don't have the link handy, but there is an howto about it that, when followed, |
18 |
will give a ZFS pool running on Gentoo in a very short time. (emerge zfs is |
19 |
the longest part of the whole thing) |
20 |
Not even needed to reboot. |
21 |
|
22 |
> > Yep. the license issue with ZFS is a real killer for me. Besides, |
23 |
> > as an old state-machine, C hack, anything with B-tree is fabulous. |
24 |
> > Prejudices? Yep, but here, I'm sticking with my gut. Multi port |
25 |
> > ram can do mavelous things with Btree data structures. The |
26 |
> > rest will become available/stable. Simply, I just trust btrfs, in |
27 |
> > my gut. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> I don't know enough about zfs to compare them, but the design of btrfs |
30 |
> has a certain amount of beauty/symmetry/etc to it IMHO. I only have |
31 |
> studied it enough to be dangerous and give some intro talks to my LUG, |
32 |
> but just about everything is stored in b-trees, the design allows both |
33 |
> fixed and non-fixed length nodes within the trees, and just about |
34 |
> everything about the filesystem is dynamic other than the superblocks, |
35 |
> which do little more than ID the filesystem and point to the current |
36 |
> tree roots. The important stuff is all replicated and versioned. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> I wouldn't be surprised if it shared many of these design features |
39 |
> with other modern filesystems, and I do not profess to be an expert on |
40 |
> modern filesystem design, so I won't make any claims about btrfs being |
41 |
> better/worse than other filesystems in this regard. However, I would |
42 |
> say that anybody interested in data structures would do well to study |
43 |
> it. |
44 |
|
45 |
I like the idea of both and hope BTRFS will also come with the raid-6-like |
46 |
features and good support for larger drive counts (I've got 16 available for |
47 |
the filestorage) to make it, for me, a viable alternative to ZFS. |
48 |
|
49 |
-- |
50 |
Joost |