Originally posted by ernstp
View Post
Speaking from experience, I've run a 288 drive ZFS setup, and that was far nicer under ZFS. ZFS is also much nicer/faster when you need to export block level storage, and for VM usage than BtrFS. Swap on ZFS works wonders, and even with very recent changes is still awful under BtrFS, which means needing LVM if you want a BtrFS volume and swap on the same group of disks, and that isn't great (BtrFS and ZFS are really designed to work best with storage that's under their complete management).
For home, I run exclusively BtrFS on the file storage part of my home file server (the OS lives on separate SSDs with LVM, BtrFS and swap), because of how much better it is on low performing hardware and dealing with mismatching drives that upgrade to different sizes at different times (usually when a drive fails, and I replace it with a bigger one, and scrub+rebalance). For my non-work/personal/small-scale needs, BtrFS is the clear winner, as ZFS is too inflexible.
Horses for courses, YMMV, etc. I'm very glad both exist.
Originally posted by rhavenn
View Post
That caveat is that the RIAD5 "write hole" problem still exists (common to almost all commercial RAID controllers too, but not in ZFS due to clever design). Even with RAID1/10 profiles on metadata, a full scrub is recommended on unclean shutdown if you run RAID5/6 on data (or invest in a good UPS with connectivity to your server, and tools to clean shutdown on a detected power failure).
On my small home file server, there's 6TB of data, and 13GB of metadata. So at around 2%, having your metadata as RAID1 instead of RAID5/6 isn't too horrible as a work around.
As of a December 2019, there's also now raid1c3 and raid1c4 profiles (i.e.: 3 or 4 copies instead of just 2):
Originally posted by rhavenn
View Post
On top of that, they're now attempting a rather convoluted combination of LVM and XFS (with XFS adding features like checksums and CoW) to try and make an equivalent file system, all in the name of "getting it to market faster". I can't say I'm impressed with what's on offer yet, but I'm willing to have my mind changed if they can combine the performance, caching, block storage exporting and swap goodness of ZFS with the flexibility and on-the-fly reconfiguration of BtrFS. (I would have instead liked to see them invest in improving BtrFS, but again, let's see where they land).
Comment