Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Exciting Btrfs Update With Encoded I/O, Fsync Performance Improvements

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

  • cynic
    replied
    Originally posted by zparihar View Post
    What's the status of BTRFS when it comes to:
    - RAID 5 & 6 bug
    not good

    Originally posted by zparihar View Post
    - Write Caching on separate disks
    - Read Caching on separate disks
    ?
    there was a discussion some time ago about that feature, and maybe some WIP but I haven't heard about it for a while, so don't think it is going forward.

    anyway, there's a new pluggable policy that allows you to tell btrfs that some drives are faster and should be used for reads (also, you can telll btrfs to use them for metadata to increase performance). This could be mainlined in 5.19

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    I've read the BTRFS documentation. They go into detail as to why you would even. I suggest you read it. TLDR: Just because they have similar features doesn't mean they have a perfect feature overlap or that features that they share work the same.
    That FAQ is fairly generic advice that is applicable to any COW based filesystem. There are certainly implementation differences but nothing that would remotely warrant calling Btrfs or ZFS a next gen filesystem compared to the other. You should just acknowledge this and move on.

    Leave a comment:


  • zparihar
    replied
    What's the status of BTRFS when it comes to:
    - RAID 5 & 6 bug - Write Caching on separate disks
    - Read Caching on separate disks

    ?

    Leave a comment:


  • intelfx
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    I've read the BTRFS documentation. They go into detail as to why you would even. I suggest you read it. TLDR: Just because they have similar features doesn't mean they have a perfect feature overlap or that features that they share work the same.
    Aaand... what? All of those points apply to ZFS equally.

    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    How about you share something cool you've done with BTRFS over the course of a half-dozen years instead of shitting on what I've done? Someone asked what I've used it for and I shared my experience on how great and flexible ZFS can be in regards to disks, partitions, and upgrading mirrors and raids.
    I'm an equal opportunity skeptic. I find and point out logical flaws in any kind of statements, regardless of who was the author or what sort of emotional attachment do they have to their opinion.

    I don't care how "cool" do you think your use-case is. I'm simply stating that there is nothing special in it. Everything you said, and more, can be achieved with btrfs (even more, because unlike ZFS, btrfs permits transparent conversion of data between storage profiles).

    Leave a comment:


  • cynic
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    Would you?

    There's so much feature overlap I feel like that's a loaded question.
    ok, got it: you just wrote something that you cannot support with facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • reza
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    BTRFS I've always used for root and have been hit by GRUB and compression issues in the past. Sometimes it's from using esoteric setups and other times it's simply due to using a rolling release distribution and finding out a bug exists the hard way. Whatever the case may be, it has happened enough in the past 10 years that I've gone back to using Ext4 for my root volumes. Ext4 just works and I've never been hit by an issue so bad that a reinstall of the OS seemed like the easier fix.
    Do you use EXT4 for your root and ZFS for other partitions? Can you explain a bit more and share how your hard disk structure is? Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by cynic View Post

    would you mind sharing an example of something you can do with ZFS that is not feasible with btrfs without using LUKS and LVM?

    Would you?

    There's so much feature overlap I feel like that's a loaded question.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by intelfx View Post

    Cool story. Except you don't need LVM with btrfs (why would you even??), and you say it yourself that you still need LUKS with ZFS. And that's completely irrelevant to what makes a technology "next-gen" or not.
    I've read the BTRFS documentation. They go into detail as to why you would even. I suggest you read it. TLDR: Just because they have similar features doesn't mean they have a perfect feature overlap or that features that they share work the same.

    I get it that you want to ascribe every last bit of your experience to perceived ZFS' greatness, but how is this different from literally any other non-brain-dead filesystem out there?
    How about you share something cool you've done with BTRFS over the course of a half-dozen years instead of shitting on what I've done? Someone asked what I've used it for and I shared my experience on how great and flexible ZFS can be in regards to disks, partitions, and upgrading mirrors and raids. I could go into how I think ZFS is also useful for creating case-insensitive volumes for Wine because Wine gets a slight performance increase if it gets to act like Windows and not care. You can only do that on Ext4 with custom formatting options. That's why the Steam Deck uses Ext4 for home and BTRFS for A/B root partitioning.

    Whoops, a ZFS fan just shared a neat use of BTRFS -- Steam Deck A/B root partitioning

    Leave a comment:


  • cynic
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    With BTRFS, to do everything ZFS does you have to use BTRFS, LUKS, and LVM.
    would you mind sharing an example of something you can do with ZFS that is not feasible with btrfs without using LUKS and LVM?


    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by kdemello1980 View Post

    OpenZFS isn't in the kernel tree, nor is it license-compatible with Linux.
    The same can be said of the Nvidia kernel module. That doesn't mean that Nvidia GPU's suddenly suck or are unusable.

    Heck, there's a bunch of modules in the AUR and software in repositories called non-free for that very reason -- not license-compatible with Linux.

    Frankly, license-compatible always turns into a philosophical debate because that's all it really is. Let's not go there today.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X