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

  • intelfx
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    With BTRFS, to do everything ZFS does you have to use BTRFS, LUKS, and LVM. Granted that OpenZFS also needs to be running on top of a LUKS container for full security. OpenZFS with encryption still shows dataset names. To hide that from an a Live environment, hacker who stole your HDD, etc you have to put OpenZFS on top of LUKS. Since that applies to pretty much everything I don't consider that to be a fault for ZFS.

    On top of the full integration, it's cross platform with FreeBSD, Solaris, and Linux with MacOS and Windows ports in the works. One has to dip into the free Windows file systems to get that feature.

    For me, those are what makes ZFS next-gen. Everything necessary is integrated within and it has the most potential to just work everywhere.

    My biggest problem is I tend to swap "zpool" and "zfs" when running commands...the biggest offenders being "zpool status $POOL" and "zfs get all". Those are the correct commands, but sometimes I'm high and run "zfs status $POOL" or "zpool get all". I wish their tools were a bit smarter and redirect commands like those while notifying me I input the incorrect command.

    Seriously, that's my biggest issue. I swap the zpool and zfs commands around.
    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.

    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    As far as being next-gen, just read my story above. You'd be hard pressed to do all that disk juggling with any other file system or setup and still have your data nice and safe 6 years later on completely different disks and systems. What I didn't mention in that story is that I switched PCs 4 times during that and that same ZFS volume went with me the entire time (4 if you include buying a new motherboard and straight swapping all the rest of the hardware, 3 if not).
    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?
    Last edited by intelfx; 22 March 2022, 10:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by intelfx View Post

    How exactly is ZFS "next-gen" compared to btrfs, or was it just generic fanboy commentary?
    With BTRFS, to do everything ZFS does you have to use BTRFS, LUKS, and LVM. Granted that OpenZFS also needs to be running on top of a LUKS container for full security. OpenZFS with encryption still shows dataset names. To hide that from an a Live environment, hacker who stole your HDD, etc you have to put OpenZFS on top of LUKS. Since that applies to pretty much everything I don't consider that to be a fault for ZFS.

    On top of the full integration, it's cross platform with FreeBSD, Solaris, and Linux with MacOS and Windows ports in the works. One has to dip into the free Windows file systems to get that feature.

    For me, those are what makes ZFS next-gen. Everything necessary is integrated within and it has the most potential to just work everywhere.

    My biggest problem is I tend to swap "zpool" and "zfs" when running commands...the biggest offenders being "zpool status $POOL" and "zfs get all". Those are the correct commands, but sometimes I'm high and run "zfs status $POOL" or "zpool get all". I wish their tools were a bit smarter and would redirect commands like those while notifying me I input the incorrect command.

    Seriously, that's my biggest issue. I swap the zpool and zfs commands around.

    As far as being next-gen, just read my story above. You'd be hard pressed to do all that disk juggling with any other file system or setup and still have your data nice and safe 6 years later on completely different disks and systems. What I didn't mention in that story is that I switched PCs 4 times during that and that same ZFS volume went with me the entire time (4 if you include buying a new motherboard and straight swapping all the rest of the hardware, 3 if not).

    Leave a comment:


  • kdemello1980
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    Except the elephant in the room: OpenZFS
    OpenZFS isn't in the kernel tree, nor is it license-compatible with Linux.

    Leave a comment:


  • intelfx
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    Except the elephant in the room: OpenZFS
    How exactly is ZFS "next-gen" compared to btrfs, or was it just generic fanboy commentary?

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

    Question: Do you have personal experience with both Btrfs and OpenZFS on your machine(s)?
    Yes. My current ZFS zraid started off as a 1.5TB partition on a single 2TB HDD. The other 500GB was NTFS for Windows. When I quit dual booting around 2017 I gave the rest of the disk to ZFS. A few years later I bought a 4TB HDD and upgraded that to a mirror. A little bit later I bought a 2nd 4TB HDD and replaced my starting 2TB disk and finally had a 4TB mirror. Around that same time I bought a 4TB HDD for Windows because I was dual booting again. About a month or two ago I juggled data around and converted that mirror into a raidz with that 4TB HDD Windows was using (that's not an officially supported method and very dangerous).

    As far as being rock solid and reliable for my data, I've been a happy camper using ZFS since around 2016. The only time I have issues is when the kernel upgrades faster than OpenZFS. My remedy is to run custom kernels and to simply not update until OpenZFS does -- can't accidentally update to an incompatible kernel if Pacman doesn't know where to get it. I'm currently doing that with Linux 5.16 and 5.17.

    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.

    If I was using a distribution like OpenSUSE I'd probably have much better BTRFS experiences.

    Leave a comment:


  • Britoid
    replied
    Originally posted by mb_q View Post

    There is nothing "nexter" gen than btfs, while many mainstream things (ext4, ntfs in particular) are clearly lesser gen; hence, it is pretty adequate IMHO. Progress in file systems is somewhat slower than in other domains, due to obvious stability concerns and garbage hardware and software abstractions.
    It's next gen I guess still in how easy it makes to manage disks.

    Want to add a disk to a pool, change raid value, compress, decompress, snapshot the btrfs tool deserves a fucking award for how easy it is to use.

    Compared to LVM and ZFS its bliss.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreenReaper
    replied
    allow reflinks/deduplication from two different mounts of the same filesystem
    This may be useful. My art site has original-sized files and reduced-size files in two locations, on two separate mounts, but sometimes they're the same file. We have the hashes to determine this, but the filesystem root is outside of the website's filesystem tree, so it would be nice not to have to refer to it. Thanks, Josef!
    Last edited by GreenReaper; 22 March 2022, 09:57 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Danny3
    replied
    If only they would upgrade the Zstd code too to the upstream version, everything would be perfect!

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    Except the elephant in the room: OpenZFS
    Question: Do you have personal experience with both Btrfs and OpenZFS on your machine(s)?

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by mb_q View Post

    There is nothing "nexter" gen than btfs, while many mainstream things (ext4, ntfs in particular) are clearly lesser gen; hence, it is pretty adequate IMHO. Progress in file systems is somewhat slower than in other domains, due to obvious stability concerns and garbage hardware and software abstractions.
    Except the elephant in the room: OpenZFS

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X