[Discuss] ZFS

[gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)]

On 10/04/2011 01:53 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
> Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> In all of the above (and btrfs) there are different architectures and very
>> efficiently written code.
>>
>> It's unfair and inaccurate to make the generalization that one is better or
>> faster than the other.  They're each better in specific cases.  Know the
>> architecture gains and losses of each one, and use the best tool for
>> whatever job you're trying to do.
> Good point. If performance matters to you, your comparison benchmarks
> should emulate your intended usage patterns.
>
> I think what is getting blended together is not just the inherent
> differences in file systems due to architectural differences, but also
> the impression that these newer file systems (ZFS, Btrfs) are ether
> immature or immature on Linux, and as such haven't been optimized for
> the platform.
And one other thing, with that technology take hold on Linux. Look at
ReiserFS. An excellent file system that was the default on SuSE systems
until Hans Reiser killed his wife. While that is not going to happen
with ZFS or with Btrfs. Since ZFS is owned by Oracle, a number of
OpenSource people will decline to use it. Btrs is supposedly a better
file system than ext4, but, it is still somewhat immature on Linux. I
think that if one of the major distros decides to use it as a default,
it may eclipse ext4. But, as Tom says, you need to look at your usage
patterns.

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90 
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90