Oracle Talks Up Btrfs Rather Than ZFS For Their Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel 6

[drjohnnyfever]

you are living in fantasy world. zfs was obsolete before btrfs was designed, there's no need to justify modern design in favor of obsolete one. even zfs owner oracle knows it and uses btrfs

I disagree. I think one of ZFS's key innovations was to revaluate and redesign the relationship between the filesystem and the volume manager. Because of the Btrfs and other Linux developer prejudices they took a clear step backwards in that regard in Btrfs.

If you want to discuss technical details I'm happy to do it.

[jacob]

I disagree. I think one of ZFS's key innovations was to revaluate and redesign the relationship between the filesystem and the volume manager. Because of the Btrfs and other Linux developer prejudices they took a clear step backwards in that regard in Btrfs.

If you want to discuss technical details I'm happy to do it.

I think the "reevaluation" of their relationship in ZFS is simply a terrible idea and the designers of subsequent competing filesystems, including Btrfs and ReFS, were very wise not to follow the same route.

[jacob]

RHEL was never going to move away from XFS anyway.

I don't think they have an ideological fixation on XFS. They are using it because they have decided it's the best fit for their purposes among what is currently available.

[jacob]

That's like saying that walking is a cheap and healthy replacement for a Mercedes S-class

It's cheap and healthy, sure, but it's not a replacement in any way.

So firstly you would never EVER use raid 5/6 for really valuable data. Then only sane option there is raid 10.

[You-]

Besides, I dont thikn Red Hat have defaulted to xfs for very long. Before then it was the ext* filesystems.

[intelfx]

Care to show legitimate common enterprise scenarios <...>

Care to show where exactly we were discussing enterprise anything?

[intelfx]

Obviously you have mistakenly mixed up the names of zfs and btrfs, but you are right. btrfs is deprecated and I am not arguing that fact!

https://access.redhat.com/documentat...tionality.html

Btrfs has been deprecated, very clearly by RedHat's documentation (arguably the biggest leader of Linux these days).

You are either clueless or deliberately misrepresenting the source (read — trolling). Red Hat's documentation only concerns Red Hat's own distribution.

[SystemCrasher]

Seems IBM (who bought RH) got a rather funny punch from their old "friend". And uhm, sorry to inform RH management morons, but their XFS and shithoncrust crap stratis is no match to btrfs device management whatsoever. I'd say it's quite funny to deliver shit instead of package management and shit instead of filesystem. Even more funny someone actually buys this crap. That beats even Microsoft in terms of sales team achievements I guess.

[SystemCrasher]

You are either clueless or deliberately misrepresenting the source (read — trolling). Red Hat's documentation only concerns Red Hat's own distribution.

BSD experts are notorious for their wishful thinking and great levels of expertise in linux systems. Uhm, funny part is that most of Big Names of filesystem world dwell in companies other than RH these days. At which point RH can "deprecate" whatever they want. They were never a major contributor to btrfs, that's rather would be their yet another competitor SuSE.

[drjohnnyfever]

I think the "reevaluation" of their relationship in ZFS is simply a terrible idea and the designers of subsequent competing filesystems, including Btrfs and ReFS, were very wise not to follow the same route.

Based on what analysis do you come to that conclusion?