Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Jun 2011 14:21 UTC, submitted by aargh
Permalink for comment 477311
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-23
This is unfortunate. I have mixed feelings about ZFS vs Btrfs.
- ZFS has been tried in the field and works very well. It was revolutionary if you will. I don't think ZFS is going to be replaced in Solaris, Nexenta, or FreeBSD any time soon.
- Rather than use Btfs, I'd like to see ZFS omnipresent as administrators only need to learn and plan for ZFS strategies
- Since ZFS on Linux efforts appear to be fading, and Btrfs efforts seem to be increasing, it looks like we're going to have fragmentation in the filesystem arena.
Don't get me wrong - I know that OSS is all about choice, and that aspect usually translates into a "good thing". But sometimes, it really does feel redundant, unnecessary, and problematic.
The good news is that things keep getting better and better, and I'm guessing within a year Btrfs will see it's day on production systems.
Cheers.