Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There's Talk Again About Btrfs For Fedora

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

  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
    Which is irrelevant to my comment that btrfs still does not have a conservative distro that uses btrfs as the default filesystem. .
    That's where we disagree. Production level deployments and commercial support from multiple vendors are strong indicators of the maturity level of the filesystem.

    Leave a comment:


  • liam
    replied
    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    Oracle's Linux developers and I have no contact with each other. I have no idea what they are doing aside from what I hear from people who talked to Oracle. As far as I have heard, Oracle regards Linux as being a lower-end offering. They seem to have no plans to port ZFS from Solaris because that would affect product differentiation.
    Well, one would think porting DTrace would lessen the differentiation but they did that.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by liam View Post
    I assume he must be referring to one of Oracle's distros (probably OL since they've already brought over DTrace as a module,though I'll be curious how they'll manage to integrate zfs).
    However, he may also be mistaken.
    Oracle's Linux developers and I have no contact with each other. I have no idea what they are doing aside from what I hear from people who talked to Oracle. As far as I have heard, Oracle regards Linux as being a lower-end offering. They seem to have no plans to port ZFS from Solaris because that would affect product differentiation.

    Leave a comment:


  • liam
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Sorry. I am not buying it unless you name the distro in question.
    I assume he must be referring to one of Oracle's distros (probably OL since they've already brought over DTrace as a module,though I'll be curious how they'll manage to integrate zfs).
    However, he may also be mistaken.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    This is very amusing. You want to assert something without providing any evidence of it. If it has no place here, you shouldn't have bought it up at all in the first place. As far as Btrfs vs ZFS arguments, I have no interest in them. There are customers who need one or the other and are willing to invest in them heavily and there are non-paying but important community players who are participating and as long as there is interest and/or money, these technologies will be developed in parallel and flourish just fine. No amount of snipping in forums is going to change that.
    I withdrew that comment by editing my post because I did not want to speak for other people. Excuse me for making an obscure comment that was not my place to make. If that distribution that I have in mind switches, they will be the ones to announce it, not me.

    Leave a comment:


  • jwilliams
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    I am pointing that Btrfs is already commercially supported and has production level deployments by several vendors as a data point. Take it for what its worth.
    Which is irrelevant to my comment that btrfs still does not have a conservative distro that uses btrfs as the default filesystem.

    It took 4 or 5 years for ZFS to become the default filesystem in Solaris.

    btrfs development is going on 6 years now, and no conservative linux distro trusts btrfs enough to make it the default filesystem.
    That makes btrfs slower in development than ZFS. And I see no sign that things are speeding up for btrfs. I wonder if btrfs will ever be good enough to use as the default filesystem for a conservative linux distro.
    Last edited by jwilliams; 01-17-2013, 08:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by jwilliams View Post
    You responded to my comment about btrfs being the default filesystem in a conservative linux distro by saying that SUSE supports btrfs, and then when I point out that it is not the default filesystem, you claim not to know what I am talking about.
    I am snipping out the personal insults. You were comparing Btrfs and ZFS. I am pointing that Btrfs is already commercially supported and has production level deployments by several vendors as a data point. Take it for what its worth.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    It really has no place here. If it happens, you will find out when everyone else does.
    This is very amusing. You want to assert something without providing any evidence of it. If it has no place here, you shouldn't have bought it up at all in the first place. As far as Btrfs vs ZFS arguments, I have no interest in them. There are customers who need one or the other and are willing to invest in them heavily and there are non-paying but important community players who are participating and as long as there is interest and/or money, these technologies will be developed in parallel and flourish just fine. No amount of snipping in forums is going to change that.

    Leave a comment:


  • jwilliams
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    I never said anything about SUSE using Btrfs as default.
    What is wrong with you? You responded to my comment about btrfs being the default filesystem in a conservative linux distro by saying that SUSE supports btrfs, and then when I point out that it is not the default filesystem, you claim not to know what I am talking about.

    Are you just trolling for fun? Or are you really having that much trouble following the thread of conversation?

    Leave a comment:


  • ryao
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Enterprise distros have full time developers, quality assurance staff, support engineers etc and the nature of the support is very different from what you do. Are you serious saying you have no idea of the dfiference between commercial and community support? Taking bug reports, writing documentation and helping users would be community support. Commercial support involves a legal contract between two entities and the nature of the support can involve answering questions within a particular time frame, developing new features to meet customer demands and more depending on the nature of the contract.
    ZFS already handles much of what people want and there are improvements in development by both the community and various commercial companies. In specific, Delphix, Joyent and Nexenta are doing commercial development. LLNL has paid developers working on it. I tend to collaborate with them and get improvements into ZFSOnLInux. Some of the things that have resulted from that collaboration were popular requests in the community, such as support for swap on ZFS and support for newer kernels. I am currently using ZFS with Linux 3.8-rc3. There are other improvements that I am working on as well.

    As far as results go, ZFS outperforms btrfs. It has better performance, better scaling, better stability and a better track record for data integrity. I cannot claim responsibility for much of that, but I can say that when someone tells me that they have a problem, I work on a fix. People might not have a commercial support contract with ZFS, but it delivers results, which is more than what btrfs has done so far.

    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Sorry. I am not buying it unless you name the distro in question.
    It really has no place here. If it happens, you will find out when everyone else does.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X