Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 33 To Offer Stratis 2.1 For Per-Pool Encryption

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fedora 33 To Offer Stratis 2.1 For Per-Pool Encryption

    Phoronix: Fedora 33 To Offer Stratis 2.1 For Per-Pool Encryption

    While Fedora 33 is slated to default to the Btrfs file-system for desktop spins, for those on Fedora Server 33 or otherwise not using the defaults will have Stratis Storage 2.1 as another option...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...is-Storage-2.1

  • #2
    "Stratis continues making great progress" hm what progress is that then? Last i checked their site, it gave me the impression that its big "feature" is that its written in rust. Everything it does is creating thin provisioning volumes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Is there an up to date feature comparison with BTRFS?

      Does it have data checksums, deduplication, send/receive, efficient repair (only worrying about block that actually have data)?

      Their FAQ pages has statements like
      "How does Stratis handle hard drive or other hardware failures?
      For current releases of Stratis it doesn’t. In fact if you create a Stratis pool with multiple devices you increase the risk of data loss as you now have multiple devices which are required to be operational to access the data." -- https://stratis-storage.github.io/faq/


      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ssam View Post
        Is there an up to date feature comparison with BTRFS?
        I think it'd be better to compare btrfs with lvm and friends (vs stratis) might as well include zfs and ceph. maybe others can fill in missing bits;
        Ceph Btrfs zfs lvm+ stratis
        snapshot y y y y
        raid0 y y y y
        raid1 y y y y
        online growth y y y y
        online shrink y y n y
        read cache y n y (l2arc) y
        write cache y n y (slog) y
        encryption y n y y (cryptsetup)
        diff sync y y y y (lvmsync)
        checksums y y y y (integritysetup)
        dedup y n y n (dm_dedup)
        skip empty blocks on repair y y y y
        remote cache y n n y (dm_cache)
        continuous availability y n n n
        score 14 8 11 12 ?
        Last edited by elatllat; 06 August 2020, 08:52 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Has anyone done any benchmarks on Stratis lately? I attempted to use it in a continuous integration test environment near the 1.0 release but performance was an order of magnitude+ worse than ZFS with a single snapshot. Needless to say, that system is using ZFS.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by elatllat View Post

            I think it'd be better to compare btrfs with lvm and friends (vs stratis) might as well include zfs and ceph. maybe others can fill in missing bits;
            Ceph Btrfs zfs lvm+ stratis
            snapshot y y y y
            raid0 y y y y
            raid1 y y y y
            raid10 y y y y
            raid5 unstable y y
            raid6 unstable y y
            raid7 y
            online raid change y
            IO isolation capability via cgroups2 y
            online growth y y y y
            online shrink y y n y
            read cache y n y (l2arc) y
            write cache y n y (slog) y
            encryption y n y y (cryptsetup)
            compression y y
            diff sync y y y y (lvmsync)
            checksums y y y y (integritysetup)
            dedup y y (offline) y n (dm_dedup)
            resilvering y y n
            skip empty blocks on repair y y y y
            remote cache y n n y (dm_cache)
            continuous availability y n n n
            reflink n y n N/A
            score 15 15+2 17 15 ?

            Changes:
            - all: add row raid5/raid6/raid7 (triple parity)
            - btrfs: change dedup from 'n' to 'y offline'
            - all: add row IO isolation capability via cgroups2
            - all: add row reflink
            - all: add row resilvering

            Note1: it is not considered to stacks btrfs over device mapper; otherwise BTRFS would have the encryption
            Note2: stratis is based on lwm/device mapper. So everything we can joint the last two columns


            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kreijack View Post
              ...stratis is based on lwm/device mapper. So everything we can joint the last two columns
              Stratis does have limitations that using the tools individually do not (as is the artical of this thread implies)






              Ceph Btrfs zfs lvm+ stratis
              snapshot y y y y
              raid0 y y y y
              raid1 y y y y
              raid10 y y y y
              raid5 y unstable y y
              raid6 y unstable y y
              raid7 y y
              online raid change y y n n
              IO isolation groups y
              online growth y y y y
              online shrink y y n y
              read cache y n y (l2arc) y
              write cache y n y (slog) y
              encryption y n y y (cryptsetup)
              compression y y y y (lvmvdo)
              diff sync y y y y (lvmsync)
              checksums y y y y (integritysetup)
              dedup y y (offline) y n (dm_dedup)
              resilvering y y y n
              skip empty blocks on repair y y y y
              remote cache y n n y (dm_cache)
              continuous availability y n n n
              reflink n y n n
              score 21 17 17 16 ?
              Changes: Ceph can online add any number/combination of shards/replicas which is the equivalent of any raid level.

              Comment


              • #8
                Why doesn't btrfs + cryptsetup count in your tables? I'm using it right now.

                Comment

                Working...
                X