To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Even when it reaches v1.0, BTRFS will be far behind ZFS.
Just look at the features.
Also there are no current plans for transparent compression on BTRFS, and I consider that a must for many cases.
Not to mention the ZFS syntax is so dead plain simple.
Not so for BTRFS.
I run ZFS on Linux (for a long time now!) via FUSE, and I'm very happy with it
Edited 2008-10-31 20:19 UTC
Even when it reaches v1.0, BTRFS will be far behind ZFS. Just look at the features.
Sure it won't implement all the "advanced" features, but it will implement all the features people cares about - mutiple device management, raid-z, selfhealing, cheap snapshots. And other features (like I/O priority) don't even need to be implemented by btrfs because they are already implemented in the generic block layer.
Also there are no current plans for transparent compression on BTRFS
Transparent compression on btrfs was merged two days ago - http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable-stan...
Edited 2008-10-31 21:57 UTC
Also there are no current plans for transparent compression on BTRFS, and I consider that a must for many cases.
You are behind the times.
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg00887.ht...






Member since:
2005-07-13
once it hits 1.0 this file system will make you breakfast if you want it to. its going to be amazing. with huge colaboration by vendors and distrobutions like RedHat, this is going to be the future of Linux FS. I for one welcome it, its about time ZFS had some competition (though they have a ways to go)