Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th May 2008 15:32 UTC, submitted by sjvn
It seems like we're really on the subject of filesystems and related technology the past few days. We had an interview with the man behind BeServed, an item on WinFS' current status, and now we - possibly - have news on ZFS coming to Linux. Possibly, because it's all speculation from here on out.
Thread beginning with comment 314749
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by sonic2000gr
by superman on Sun 18th May 2008 22:17
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by sonic2000gr"
Member since:2006-08-01
RE[5]: Comment by sonic2000gr
by phoenix on Wed 21st May 2008 05:05
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by sonic2000gr"
Member since:2005-07-11
Do not compare ext3 with ZFS.
But ext3 + device-mapper + lvm with ZFS.
But ext3 + device-mapper + lvm with ZFS.
A closer comparison would be MD + DM + LVM + XFS, but that still doesn't really compare equally. And you don't have nearly the flexibility as with zfs. Especially when it comes to snapshots (why do I have to leave unused space in my volume group for snapshots to work, and guess how much space the snapshot will need?).
The really nice thing about pooled storage, where you don't have to "allocate X MB of space to filesystemX", is that you can start to use separate filesystems for each user, or for each project, or for each special purpose. Then set the properties for each filesystem. And let the storage system manage the space. If you need to limit things, then you put a quota on the filesystem (or fs root, as sub-filesystems will inherit the properties of the root).
It's a very liberating experience compared to LVM.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-02-10
I almost agree with you. Not that ext3 is good enough...