Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Aug 2010 19:14 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Permalink for comment 436409
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 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-11
Until it gets support for RAID levels above 1, it'll be hard to even consider it for a lot of storage applications. The patches for this have been "just around the corner" for over a year now.
Until it gets support for deduplication, it'll be hard to consider it for a lot of storage applications. There aren't even any plans for adding this at this time.
Until it gets support for proper volume management (or better integration with LVM/md) it won't be a good fit for use in storage systems with 10/20/30/hundreds of disks.
Actually, until Linux gets a storage stack comparable to ZFS in OSol/FreeBSD or GEOM in FreeBSD, it's not a good fit for many storage applications.
Maybe for desktops with 1-4 drives, or for laptops with 1-2 drives, or for small servers with 1-4 drives, Btrfs may be useful (nothing but RAID10). But for large storage servers with 24+ drive bays, or for storage arrays that can handle multiple 48-bay enclosures, it's just nowhere near ready.
Anyone who believes otherwise is seriously deluding themselves.