Story Missing? (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-12 16:46 (#2SBB) Sorry this is off topic, but the AntRadio story below seems to have a bad link now?I can still get to the story withhttp://pipedot.org/story/2014-09-12/stanford-engineer-aims-to-connect-the-world-with-antsized-radiosbut the current front page points tohttp://pipedot.org/story/2014-09-12/stanford-engineer-aims-to-connect-the-world-with-ant-sized-radioswhich results in"story not found - date [2014-09-12] title [stanford-engineer-aims-to-connect-the-world-with-ant-sized-radios]Back on topic, I'm happy to know that ZFS is finally getting there, but is there any reason I wouldn't use BTRFS instead? Re: Story Missing? (Score: 1) by fnj@pipedot.org on 2014-09-13 09:58 (#2SCA) The question makes no sense. The question you should be asking is "is there any reason to prefer btrfs", and the answer is, at this time, no. ZFS is not "getting there", it is THERE. Has been for a while. Super stable. btrfs is still very much in development. A very slow development.If you really, really, really must insist on the question as framed, here are some reasons:* I do not believe btrfs has as yet any counterpart to raidz, raidz2, or raidz3* snapshots are handled in a very clumsy manner in btrfs, and very succinctly in ZFS* ZFS has no fsck because by design it doesn't need one. btrfs needs fsck and has only a limited version as yet.* ZFS filesets are much more versatile than btrfs subvolumes.* Creation and destruction of ZFS filesets is essentially instantaneous. As I remember it, btrfs like ext2/3/4, etc, is emphatically not.* Many, many more reasons. Re: Story Missing? (Score: 1) by scotch@pipedot.org on 2014-09-14 14:19 (#2SCT) What about CEPH on btrfs versus CEPH on ZFS ? Does anyone have some clue baout that? I would be _verY_ interseted about this one topic but never cross any reading about the later...
Re: Story Missing? (Score: 1) by fnj@pipedot.org on 2014-09-13 09:58 (#2SCA) The question makes no sense. The question you should be asking is "is there any reason to prefer btrfs", and the answer is, at this time, no. ZFS is not "getting there", it is THERE. Has been for a while. Super stable. btrfs is still very much in development. A very slow development.If you really, really, really must insist on the question as framed, here are some reasons:* I do not believe btrfs has as yet any counterpart to raidz, raidz2, or raidz3* snapshots are handled in a very clumsy manner in btrfs, and very succinctly in ZFS* ZFS has no fsck because by design it doesn't need one. btrfs needs fsck and has only a limited version as yet.* ZFS filesets are much more versatile than btrfs subvolumes.* Creation and destruction of ZFS filesets is essentially instantaneous. As I remember it, btrfs like ext2/3/4, etc, is emphatically not.* Many, many more reasons. Re: Story Missing? (Score: 1) by scotch@pipedot.org on 2014-09-14 14:19 (#2SCT) What about CEPH on btrfs versus CEPH on ZFS ? Does anyone have some clue baout that? I would be _verY_ interseted about this one topic but never cross any reading about the later...
Re: Story Missing? (Score: 1) by scotch@pipedot.org on 2014-09-14 14:19 (#2SCT) What about CEPH on btrfs versus CEPH on ZFS ? Does anyone have some clue baout that? I would be _verY_ interseted about this one topic but never cross any reading about the later...