Thoughts on zfs? Relevant as ever or obsoleted by btrfs?

Thoughts on zfs? Relevant as ever or obsoleted by btrfs?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >obsoleted by btrfs
    Braindead.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    sega

    yeah btrfs has all zfs features and has a much better license so it's in the kernel source tr-
    >*btrashes your data*

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    eh, not entirely comparable yet. BTRFS has a write hole issue. I've never lost data on it because I'm not retarded. The only real things you see comparing the two is COW, snapshots.

    ZFS is great for VMs, BTRFS, not so much. Making virtual disks for a VM out of BTRFS volumes doesn't work right. Using qcow2 files would be stupid on a COW system.

    Open ZFS is going to be adding ZRAID/RAIDZ# resize. BTRFS has had this capability for a while now.

    I use BTRFS for my desktop, ZFS for my Proxmox servers. It allows for near instant backups of all my VMs to remote storage with ZFS send/rec. BTRFS allows the same, but as stated. I use ZFS for the VMs.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Used and continue to use Btrfs since before it was mainlined. Even been using the scary "RAID5" mode on a server for almost a decade without data loss, surviving two total drive failure events.

      I have nothing bad to say about Btrfs on Linux and still use it on laptops and desktops.

      With that said, I have converted my servers to FreeBSD and ZFS. The implementation of ZFS into FreeBSD is far more integral to the system than ZoL, and I don't mean just because it's in the kernel - many userspace tools have ZFS options baked in.

      I have not seen a performance difference between ZFS or Btrfs on identical hardware with the exception of ZFS scrubs (ZRAID1) being a far faster than Btrfs (12 hours ZFS vs 65+ hours Btrfs).

      My only recommendation that has offered both a space savings and small performance bump is set ZFS recordsize=1M if you're primarily storing data and not constant read/write such as a media NAS.

      Thanks for the detailed info!

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Used and continue to use Btrfs since before it was mainlined. Even been using the scary "RAID5" mode on a server for almost a decade without data loss, surviving two total drive failure events.

      I have nothing bad to say about Btrfs on Linux and still use it on laptops and desktops.

      With that said, I have converted my servers to FreeBSD and ZFS. The implementation of ZFS into FreeBSD is far more integral to the system than ZoL, and I don't mean just because it's in the kernel - many userspace tools have ZFS options baked in.

      I have not seen a performance difference between ZFS or Btrfs on identical hardware with the exception of ZFS scrubs (ZRAID1) being a far faster than Btrfs (12 hours ZFS vs 65+ hours Btrfs).

      My only recommendation that has offered both a space savings and small performance bump is set ZFS recordsize=1M if you're primarily storing data and not constant read/write such as a media NAS.

      holy reddit spacing

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's programmer spacing newfag. Nta btw

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      umm actually zfs is redirect on write not copy on write

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Using qcow2 files would be stupid on a COW system.
      And yet that's best for performance, qcow2 on ZFS. I tried Zvols instead once and it was worse.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Used and continue to use Btrfs since before it was mainlined. Even been using the scary "RAID5" mode on a server for almost a decade without data loss, surviving two total drive failure events.

    I have nothing bad to say about Btrfs on Linux and still use it on laptops and desktops.

    With that said, I have converted my servers to FreeBSD and ZFS. The implementation of ZFS into FreeBSD is far more integral to the system than ZoL, and I don't mean just because it's in the kernel - many userspace tools have ZFS options baked in.

    I have not seen a performance difference between ZFS or Btrfs on identical hardware with the exception of ZFS scrubs (ZRAID1) being a far faster than Btrfs (12 hours ZFS vs 65+ hours Btrfs).

    My only recommendation that has offered both a space savings and small performance bump is set ZFS recordsize=1M if you're primarily storing data and not constant read/write such as a media NAS.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      kys troon

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    for me, it's ReFS

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't that get dropped by Microsoft?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    obsoleted by btrfs, despite the seething from zfs shills

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    really good
    been using it on my NAS
    I'm not going to bother with btrfs
    would be cool if zfs was a default install option on my distro, though

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    imagine being replaced by a filesystem that still can't use RAID6

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >imagine being replaced by a filesystem that still can't use RAID6
      This, btrfs shills always conveniently leave this part out, I almost tricked into switching over until I read arch wiki warning, do btrfs users just cope with raid1 or they just use single disk exclusively?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >imagine being replaced by a filesystem that still can't use RAID6
      This, btrfs shills always conveniently leave this part out, I almost tricked into switching over until I read arch wiki warning, do btrfs users just cope with raid1 or they just use single disk exclusively?

      btrfs users who care about their data just cope with raid1/10. still better than non-resizable volumes though

      kys troon

      meds

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >imagine being replaced by a filesystem that still can't use RAID6
      This, btrfs shills always conveniently leave this part out, I almost tricked into switching over until I read arch wiki warning, do btrfs users just cope with raid1 or they just use single disk exclusively?

      use mraid1 and draid5 (or mraid1c3 and draid6) and it's fine. the only gotcha is that you have to use btrfs device replace to deal with a failed drive, you can't just detach it and rebalance it out, and you have to reboot during that process.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I currently have my drive formatted as EXT4 and I use my computer for LULZ and Facebook. What would I benefit from using some crazy black magic voodoo filesystem?

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Use the superior filesystem, Reiserfs.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    btrfs is for retards who can't learn zfs or lvm2

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    zfs is shit on Linux. btrfs works very well. bcachefs is the futere.

Your email address will not be published.