Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Has Plans For Btrfs In 2011, 2012

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

  • nanonyme
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    ZFS and BTRFS are based on COW copy-on-write, this permits a series of advanced FS features. If you really want to innovate you have to discover something better than COW. And you need to change what data centers professionals are demanding. It's not easy
    Actually as far as I've heard, Btrfs is innovative compared to ZFS in that matter. People developing ZFS thought COW on B-trees wasn't practical or even doable, then Btrfs developers did it.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    The problem is that ZFS development will not stand still. It is like Wine, which copies WinXP. But meanwhile MS has released Vista, and Win7. And then will release Win8. Wine will never catch up.
    This will be true if the development power will be the same

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    ZFS and BTRFS are based on COW copy-on-write, this permits a series of advanced FS features. If you really want to innovate you have to discover something better than COW. And you need to change what data centers professionals are demanding. It's not easy

    This quote is basically valid to BTRFS too.

    "ZFS uses a copy-on-write, transactional object model. All block pointers within the filesystem contain a 256-bit checksum of the target block which is verified when the block is read. Blocks containing active data are never overwritten in place; instead, a new block is allocated, modified data is written to it, and then any metadata blocks referencing it are similarly read, reallocated, and written. To reduce the overhead of this process, multiple updates are grouped into transaction groups, and an intent log is used when synchronous write semantics are required.

    The ZFS copy-on-write model has another powerful advantage: when ZFS writes new data, instead of releasing the blocks containing the old data, it can instead retain them, creating a snapshot version of the file system. ZFS snapshots are created very quickly, since all the data comprising the snapshot is already stored; they are also space efficient, since any unchanged data is shared among the file system and its snapshots.

    Writable snapshots ("clones") can also be created, resulting in two independent file systems that share a set of blocks. As changes are made to any of the clone file systems, new data blocks are created to reflect those changes, but any unchanged blocks continue to be shared, no matter how many clones exist."

    Leave a comment:


  • oleid
    replied
    Hi!

    Here is a nice article about ZFS and BtrFS:



    It also includes some historical and technical information.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    ZFS is an outstanding advanced FS, possible the best, acclaimed everywhere by professionals. The idea of : lets go we have to be more original we have to do a better FS now, it's a little innocent. It's my opinion .

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    I am saying that ZFS is ported to other OSes. It is possible to do.
    Yes, but only to OSes that aren't licensed under the GPL. They can legally copy/paste ZFS code into their OS, but Sun specifically designed their license to freeze out GPL software. No doubt because Linux was their main competition. A ZFS port to linux would require building it from scratch based on specs and reverse engineering, unlike the BSD/Mac ports. It would also likely be just as difficult as creating a new filesystem like btrfs, so Oracle decided to go that way instead.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    In my opinion btrfs just has to bring ZFS features to Linux to kill ZFS in the future.
    Ah, ok. Well, I dont agree. But we have to see in 5-10 years if you are correct or not.


    Originally posted by kraftman View Post
    Btw. while the ZFS is a Zeta file system what new, better can be discovered? You've got to catch up first and then you can race.
    The problem is that ZFS development will not stand still. It is like Wine, which copies WinXP. But meanwhile MS has released Vista, and Win7. And then will release Win8. Wine will never catch up.

    I think it is a bad idea to catch up. I think it is better to do like Sun did: innovate and come up with a totally new file system different from everything else on the market. Instead Linux people should discard everything known about file systems, and try to make a new solution - much better than ZFS. Not just a copy. BTRFS will not be able to catch up ZFS. This is my opinion and you are free to disagree.

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    Yes, I agree with you. But if "BTRFS is here to kill ZFS" then BTRFS should not be a lesser copy of ZFS. Instead it should do something new and innovative - otherwise I doubt it can kill ZFS?
    In my opinion btrfs just has to bring ZFS features to Linux to kill ZFS in the future. Btw. while the ZFS is a Zeta file system what new, better can be discovered? You've got to catch up first and then you can race.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimbo
    replied
    Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
    Yes, I agree with you. But if "BTRFS is here to kill ZFS" then BTRFS should not be a lesser copy of ZFS. Instead it should do something new and innovative - otherwise I doubt it can kill ZFS?

    Of course it is good if similar file systems as ZFS are spread. But I am talking about the possibility of BTRFS to kill ZFS. I do not see that happen if BTRFS is a weaker copy?
    I repeat, "BTRFS is here to kill ZFS" ?? in my point of view, that is not important.

    There is a *real need* of subvolumes, snapsot, data integrity... on data centers and other sectors. So there is a need of BTRFS as a linux clone of ZFS.

    Who knows if BTRFS will be better tan ZFS?? lets kill ZFS on future projects: ZFS 2? or BTRFS2? for now, there is a need of those ZFS features. Once implemented, you can look for improvement.

    Leave a comment:


  • kebabbert
    replied
    Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
    ZFS took about 5 years to be fully developed and feature rich. And now is one of the best FS.

    Industry is demanding a FS like ZFS on linux, because of its nice features, why not to copy it? because you think it is not original??
    do u think that in 2 years of development btrfs has any possibility of be better than ZFS?

    Let's a chance to BTRFS to catch ZFS and then we will see.
    Yes, I agree with you. But if "BTRFS is here to kill ZFS" then BTRFS should not be a lesser copy of ZFS. Instead it should do something new and innovative - otherwise I doubt it can kill ZFS?

    Of course it is good if similar file systems as ZFS are spread. But I am talking about the possibility of BTRFS to kill ZFS. I do not see that happen if BTRFS is a weaker copy?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X