Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC, submitted by kragil
Permalink for comment 428576
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-14
ZFS seems to be the betamax of file systems already.
Are you actually going to elaborate on that point or just leave it there in what some might view as a tolling argument?
Aside for better Linux support - I've not seen anything in BtrFS that's swayed my to switch from ZFS.
But I'm completely open to reason, so please explain away
I do agree with the first poster, and these are my points: ZFS and BTRFS are very similar feature wise, but BTRFS is achieving a lot of attention and support from the Linux community (and some first appearence on the "enterprise" side with RHEL 6 as an "experimental" feature).
So, I'll guess that BTRFS will be accepted as a solid and reliable solution soon, while ZFS will be a lot behind.
So, who will need ZFS when it doesn't provide anything different from BTRFS and not being at the same production-level quality?
(note that this is a question, not a statement! if someone has good reasons to say that ZFS is better, than I'm open to hear it!)