| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:41 AM, James <wireless@×××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 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 |
> |
| 18 |
> Yep. the license issue with ZFS is a real killer for me. Besides, |
| 19 |
> as an old state-machine, C hack, anything with B-tree is fabulous. |
| 20 |
> Prejudices? Yep, but here, I'm sticking with my gut. Multi port |
| 21 |
> ram can do mavelous things with Btree data structures. The |
| 22 |
> rest will become available/stable. Simply, I just trust btrfs, in |
| 23 |
> my gut. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I don't know enough about zfs to compare them, but the design of btrfs |
| 26 |
has a certain amount of beauty/symmetry/etc to it IMHO. I only have |
| 27 |
studied it enough to be dangerous and give some intro talks to my LUG, |
| 28 |
but just about everything is stored in b-trees, the design allows both |
| 29 |
fixed and non-fixed length nodes within the trees, and just about |
| 30 |
everything about the filesystem is dynamic other than the superblocks, |
| 31 |
which do little more than ID the filesystem and point to the current |
| 32 |
tree roots. The important stuff is all replicated and versioned. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I wouldn't be surprised if it shared many of these design features |
| 35 |
with other modern filesystems, and I do not profess to be an expert on |
| 36 |
modern filesystem design, so I won't make any claims about btrfs being |
| 37 |
better/worse than other filesystems in this regard. However, I would |
| 38 |
say that anybody interested in data structures would do well to study |
| 39 |
it. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Rich |
Archives