Originally posted by pal666
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Approved: Fedora 33 Desktop Variants Defaulting To Btrfs File-System
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by kloczek View PostCould you please as well tell why in that compartion ZFS is so many times mentioned when it comes what has btrfs?
Originally posted by kloczek View PostOr what btrf offer which ZFS doesn't??
Originally posted by kloczek View PostSince btrfs has no such thing like ARC
Originally posted by kloczek View Postdeduplication in btrfs is very limite causeing big IO overhead.
You would know that if you would be using dedup on btrfs.Last edited by pal666; 16 July 2020, 04:13 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
Attack the messenger. Sorry man.. truth is hard. Do the hard work Linux! Engineer, be exceptional. I want that, I would love to see linux change it's philosophy and shine. Go get container ID's in ps and top.. it's about time.
PS. I'm assuming that you feel weak on btrfs vs zfs field and you want to start new subject. Am I right?Last edited by kloczek; 16 July 2020, 04:07 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postbtrfs works on single drive, btrfs uses btree of extends which is more space and time efficient, btrfs checksums individual pages, btrfs can clone from clone, btrfs has raid 1 and 0. and not on that list, but still important: btrfs can be resized
: shrug : maybe you need to learn a bit more before you attack people?
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postbuy larger drives, or wipe and reinstall
you can't come up with smarter questions?
Your comment suggests that Fedora WANTS users to work through complicated steps to manage storage space within the system, but the link in the article and the Fedora bug report referenced by the page from that link don't support your view.
From what I can tell:
Fedora wants their system administration to be easier, so users don't have to follow complicated steps to use all available storage space currently in the system; sounds like a noble goal to me. The linked Fedora page, that I doubt you read, focused on a discussion of methods to have 2 different mount points built on unique partitions and thus having a fixed size (a byproduct of their installer, IIRC) both access the same remaining "free space" in the system, and it looks like they figured out a way to do it. For some users that will solve some problems. It does not yet appear to solve the inevitable problem of actually running out of storage space on existing media where the only solution left is adding another drive and possibly moving 1 or more mount points and their associated files to the new larger storage media; a complex and complicated task that newbies would certainly mess up (a goal Fedora is trying to avoid) and experienced users generally groan about while accomplishing the task.
Comment
-
Originally posted by k1e0x View PostThat's biased.
Originally posted by k1e0x View PostZFS does not need fsck and having it would not help it do anything better.
Originally posted by k1e0x View PostIt has no journal to replay but does have the checksum it validates on each read. if it's wrong it will automatically repair (if another source exists)
Originally posted by k1e0x View PostZFS also supports clones and writable snapshots. BTRFS isn't unique here.
Originally posted by k1e0x View PostZFS's deduplication is being rewritten to be ram friendly.
Originally posted by k1e0x View PostWhere it is true ZFS was designed for the enterprise and large storage. As we often find in computing what was once only available to
supercomputers is, given time, in every smart phone. Storage data management of our personal systems is looking closer to what enterprise was using a few decades ago.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by k1e0x View Postzfs works on a single drive
Originally posted by k1e0x View Post, zfs is quite space efficient as well
Originally posted by k1e0x View Post, zfs has checksum on every single block in the tree,
Originally posted by k1e0x View Postzfs can clone from a clone
Originally posted by k1e0x View Post, zfs has raid levels and combinations of nesting that we don't even have RAID-X numbers for
Originally posted by k1e0x View Post, and zfs can be resized as well (grown).
Originally posted by k1e0x View Post: shrug : maybe you need to learn a bit more before you attack people?
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postno
everyone needs fsck
btrfs also has checksum. and btrfs has another sources even on single drive.
you fail to read. btrfs clones are first class citizens, you can clone from clone. on zfs you can't
btrfs dedup is not set in stone either
smartphones still have only one drive
pool: zpool
state: ONLINE
scan: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
zpool ONLINE 0 0 0
ada0p2 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
Looks fine to me. Realistically you want something that is as paranoid about data integrity as ZFS on the most flaky of drives.. such as usb sticks. it's good there, it's also cross platform. (linux, bsd, macos, solaris, windows etc)
And you can clone a clone, a clone is just a writable snapshot. btw, ZFS also has another level of "snapshot" called a bookmark where it can undo everything, even deleted volumes (datasets)
Pal666... Lets just be honest here.. you just don't like the licence right? Because you head it was "anti-linux" or something? It's not, the FSF was wrong about it. ZFS is a benefit to Linux because it allows it to do a lot of great things. It allows Linux to compete with NetApp and EMC... I'll bet there are hundreds of people reading this who run Linux VM's backed by NetApp.. wouldn't it be cool if they ran Linux VM's on Linux? ZFS allows us to do this today, the capabilities for enterprise storage are already there.
Let the past die, it was a lie.Last edited by k1e0x; 16 July 2020, 04:27 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pal666 View Postthere are many different implementations of dedup for btrfs with different properties and overheads. you would know that if you weren't mindlessly reposting zfs propaganda
PS. I'm not asking about the same quality/performance/resources consumption as it is now in Solaris 11.4 last ASRU.
Comment
Comment