Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SUSE Remains Committed To The Btrfs File-System

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

  • SUSE Remains Committed To The Btrfs File-System

    Phoronix: SUSE Remains Committed To The Btrfs File-System

    While Red Hat is backing away from Btrfs support in favor of their next-gen Stratis project and mature Linux file-systems like EXT4 and XFS, SUSE is reaffirming their support for Btrfs...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...cks-With-Btrfs

  • #2
    I have nothing against BTRFS I even used it for a while but I think the solution is to move that manpower into http://zfsonlinux.org and add any missing feature from btrfs to ZFS and even focus some of that money(if there is any) into having some lawyers checking safe ways to include ZFS as default.

    As far as I've understand BTRFS is a lesser ZFS clone because of licensing conflict that is not even close to ZFS yet, in this case I think everyone would benefit better just focusing and uber optimizing ZFS since is open source as well and the actual thing BTRFS is kinda trying to clone(but it seems CDDL is less or more or equally open source but it seems not as opensource as the kernel is or wants to be but is at the same time more open source than some parts of the kernel are but in the wrong open source way while at the same time is more open source than half the userspace code, boy I hate licensing).

    Comment


    • #3
      What does ZFS have that btrfs does not?

      I have btrfs on half a dozen drives, and I've been using it that way for years without any trouble.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
        I have nothing against BTRFS I even used it for a while but I think the solution is to move that manpower into http://zfsonlinux.org and add any missing feature from btrfs to ZFS and even focus some of that money(if there is any) into having some lawyers checking safe ways to include ZFS as default.

        As far as I've understand BTRFS is a lesser ZFS clone because of licensing conflict that is not even close to ZFS yet, in this case I think everyone would benefit better just focusing and uber optimizing ZFS since is open source as well and the actual thing BTRFS is kinda trying to clone(but it seems CDDL is less or more or equally open source but it seems not as opensource as the kernel is or wants to be but is at the same time more open source than some parts of the kernel are but in the wrong open source way while at the same time is more open source than half the userspace code, boy I hate licensing).
        ZFS' license and Linux' license are just not compatible. It will forever remain an external module... unless Oracle changes its license. Or the Linux driver is rewritten from scratch under a compatible license.

        Btrfs, on the other hand, is already part of Linux and, feature-wise, it's not that far anymore from ZFS.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Michael_S View Post
          What does ZFS have that btrfs does not?
          Stable RAID5/6, an annoying license and... popularity in some circles, I guess.

          Comment


          • #6
            ZFS was developed as a anti-hw-raid platform. If you know the history, you'll understand what I just said. If you don't have any existing storage subsystems, and want to build your own, ZFS makes a lot of sense. If you do have a good storage environment already, I can show you why ZFS might the "wrong answer". (let the flames begin because I didn't properly worship ZFS).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by cjcox View Post
              (let the flames begin because I didn't properly worship ZFS).
              Now, you were right in saying that ZFS is not perfect for every use case. It, like every other filesystem, has its pros and cons.

              But why did you have to leave the troll bait? Just seems really unnecessary.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
                I have nothing against BTRFS I even used it for a while but I think the solution is to move that manpower into http://zfsonlinux.org and add any missing feature from btrfs to ZFS and even focus some of that money(if there is any) into having some lawyers checking safe ways to include ZFS as default.
                The reason even Oracle (the creators/owners of ZFS/its closedsource upstream) are investing in btrfs is that it aims to be plain better and more flexible than ZFS from the start.

                ZFS was designed with a different scenario in mind, and adding more flexibility now would basically mean rewriting core stuff from scratch.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by cjcox View Post
                  ZFS was developed as a anti-hw-raid platform. If you know the history, you'll understand what I just said. If you don't have any existing storage subsystems, and want to build your own, ZFS makes a lot of sense. If you do have a good storage environment already, I can show you why ZFS might the "wrong answer".
                  This is kinda tangential, also btrfs is an "anti-hw-raid" platform for that matter.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Michael_S View Post
                    What does ZFS have that btrfs does not?

                    I have btrfs on half a dozen drives, and I've been using it that way for years without any trouble.
                    raid 5/6/7 with no memory hole or catastrophic failure in case of parity error, l2arc, encryption, deduplication.... these are a few.

                    Plus, i do have lots of problems with btrfs even raid1, i got a raid 1 array i use as a lazy backup system and it broke, all it takes is 1 power outage. Same thing on a volume on a server.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X