Btrfs Filesystem In Linux 3.6 Kernel Has Big Changes

[devsk]

The beauty of ZoL is that it installs as a separate package and is modular. So, putting it inside of kernel is not needed. There is no patching of the kernel (unlike R4).

How hard is it to install a package and use the filesystem? Without breaking any licensing/legal laws.

ZoL is the best thing that happened to Linux in recent times (like last 2 years)...

[tstrunk]

Maybe you should read:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTExMTc

That's only for Metadata. It's very fast as written in the article, but it cannot guarantee that your data is not corrupted.

[Kano]

Maybe you should read:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTExMTc

[tstrunk]

ZFS is still great and for many things the only choice still.
But it will quite certainly never be a native (in-kernel and distribution default) filesystem for linux, due to licensing and patenting.

Btrfs didn't reach feature-parity yet, but the developers promise that it will. And it will be native and not patent-encumbered. We need a filesystem like that on Linux, because ext4 doesn't have all the advanced features (especially checksums in the metadata). Therefore it's very good for the health of the linux ecosystem that it exists.

Of course. ZFS is used on Linux for LUSTRE cluster file system and most people that used to develpo it for Sun are now in companies outside of Oracle, developing it further.
CERN use ZFSOnLinux for its physics measurements that could not have any errors
and Zfs on Linux is used to make petabyte storage (PB).
- If it is good enough for science laboratories, it is good enough for me.

As far as I (and wikipedia) know, Lustre is still quite independent from ZFS:
"The storage used for the MDT and OST backing filesystems is partitioned, optionally organized with logical volume management (LVM) and/or RAID, and normally formatted as ext4 file systems. The Lustre OSS and MDS servers read, write, and modify data in the format imposed by these file systems." (from wikipedia)
It does feature a ZFS storage backend though.

[Markore]

Using ZFS on Linux/Illumos/FreeBSD versus Btrfs

Originally Posted by Markore View Post
ZFS is only filesystem you can count on to be supported on all platforms (Windows remain to be ported to

Fat32 and UDF?

I was thinking of Filesystem you can install your operating system to.
And from what you can boot multiple different operating systems,
and using same boot/system disk(s) together with shared data disk(s) pools.

ZFS, being supported for boot from Illumos,Linux and FreeBSD is the best system I know for the moment i you want to be free of OS/Platform constraints or even architecture constraints (same ZFS pool works on SPARC and x86 without changes)

I do not believe Btrfs for stability and production use for now.
If I tend to be supported with Linux install I would go with ext4 for system disks (I think ext4 now has snapshots)
and ZFS for data pool that applications actually use to work with or store data to.

[benmoran]

I've been using BTRFS on three machines for a few months, and really liking it so far. Not a single issue. In fact, the only time I've lost data on BTRFS was a few versions ago, due to not fully understanding adding/removing drives. It didn't (and still doesn't) offer a lot of warnings against letting you hose your system. Not really a fault of BTRFS though. Anyways, I'm currently running the 3.4 Kernel and newest applicible btrfs-tools, and it's been a smooth experience so far.

As a test I'm actually running a 4 disk BTRFS RAID1 array - where all four disks are loaded with bad sectors. They are all old disks in the process of failing. So far, BTRFS has handled the situation flawlessly. I look forward to doing a similar test with the RAID5/6, once it's ready. What better way to test the resiliance, IMO.

As for ZFS, it really is a nice filesystem. Despite the continued development, however, I can see it eventually getting surpassed by BTRFS. Whatever your opinion of the license issue is, the simple fact is that it won't ever be included in a default Linux install. A lot of enterprises simply wont install a 3rd party file system for a varient of reasons. Because of that, BTRFS will eventually (not going to guess on the time frame here ) be in much wider spread use than ZFS. That is, as long as ext4 is any indication, and nothing else amazing comes along. I do agree that for those with the know-how and the need, it's probably the best choice to use RIGHT NOW.

[curaga]

ZFS is only filesystem you can count on to be supported on all platforms (Windows remain to be ported to

Fat32 and UDF?

[Markore]

ZFS is production.

is it no possible to repair a broken Btrfs - had this month's ago after crash, my $Home was close to dead.

@Markore is it possible to use ZFS with Linux - thought only for BSD?

Of course. ZFS is used on Linux for LUSTRE cluster file system and most people that used to develpo it for Sun are now in companies outside of Oracle, developing it further.
CERN use ZFSOnLinux for its physics measurements that could not have any errors
and Zfs on Linux is used to make petabyte storage (PB).
- If it is good enough for science laboratories, it is good enough for me.

One can simply add PPA for Ubuntu, for instance when booting from Live CD and install system on Newly made or existing ZFS.
ZFS on Linux for Lustre : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGjzkgnxgKc

http://zfsonlinux.org/

Sequoia's 55PB Lustre+ZFS Filesystem : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=c5ASf53v4lI

New ZFS futures of OpenSource ZFS (outside Oracle, therefore Illumos as upstream, BSD people also develop it).
Newest for ZFS are so called "feature flags" that make ZFS compatible across platforms (Illumos,FreeBSD,Linux).

I have Both several Illumos based Openindiana 151a5 and Ubuntu Linux and are planing to install FreeBSD.
All from One partition from one disk
(Using Zfs datasets/ Boot environments (currently booting from OI's GRUB1 but article state also native Linux ZFS boot).
- Althrough ZFS is best when making fault-tolerant disk arrays and combining it with transparent SSD storage that speeds up whole disks pool.

https://launchpad.net/~zfs-native/+archive/stable

HOWTO install Ubuntu to a Native ZFS Root Filesystem :

https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs/wiki/HOWTO-install-Ubuntu-to-a-Native-ZFS-Root-Filesystem

Not only ZFS is active and Illumos is alive, but ZFS is only filesystem you can count on to be supported on all platforms (Windows remain to be ported to
CDDL is not a problem, since it is a Linux module connected to LGPL kernel parts , aether compiled before install or separately, like any driver.

[Xake]

There is a tool btrfsck but it will only tell you your file system is broken. It won't fix it.

Not true anymore. btrfs-progs in git has had a working fsck for quite a while now. Only thing missing is 0.20 so distributions picks it up.

[vertexSymphony]

Another Solaris fan that just hasn't gotten over the fact that Solaris/Sun is dead I take it? CDDL was a complete failure as a licence because it wasn't an open license it was basically the same as Microsofts "open" licenses. Sun had the right idea but could never sack up enough to take the company there.

?Solaris fan? lol, no ... instead of playing guessing, just ask, Solaris IS DEAD (With IllumOS I kinda don't know, seems dead despite the progress made )
ZFS was the crown's jewel, no need to be "a fan" to recognize the technical merit behind it. Independently of the platform ... ZFS runs on IllumOS, FreeBSD and OS X ... haiku is implementing it afaik, too.

So it's just funny when you say "Solaris fan" when you see all those platforms, please, educate yourself → http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Platforms

And ... ?have you read the license? if not, please do (THE LICENSE, not the GNU's stance on the license, make your own interpretations, even the purists recognize the license as "copyleft", "per file copyleft" some people might say ... the "dont use it because allows linking with propietary software" argument that GNU's made is ridiculous when you ask yourself WHY does LGPL exists in the first place)

BTW btrfs was started by Oracle who also owns ZFS now.

Yes, being "owner" is not a synonym of "developer" ... Most of the Sun engineers have "left the building" (ZFS team included) ... so, what's the point in making a "not invented here" syndrome kind of argument?

ZFS is still evolving on its own, WITHOUT Oracle ... with a community behind it, in fact, implementations started to diverge from ZFS v29-31 and now, differences got deeper with the add of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REzvy59jQnw

Again, educate yourself → http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc