Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linux Employees of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have ported Sun's/Oracle's ZFS natively to Linux. Linux already had a ZFS port in userspace via FUSE, since license incompatibilities between the CDDL and GPL prevent ZFS from becoming part of the Linux kernel. This project solves the licensing issue by distributing ZFS as a separate kernel module users will have to download and build for themselves.
Thread beginning with comment 428547
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
brtfs
by vivainio on Mon 7th Jun 2010 11:48 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

We are currently starting to see btrfs (also developed by Oracle btw ;-) gaining traction.

ZFS seems to be the betamax of file systems already.

Reply Score: 1

RE: brtfs
by Lennie on Mon 7th Jun 2010 11:55 in reply to "brtfs"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

By the time they get a solid working module for the Linux kernel of ZFS (the FreeBSD-hackers took years to get it right), I'm pretty sure btrfs will already have matured quiet nicely. But with Linux betting on several horses isn't unusual.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: brtfs
by Kebabbert on Mon 7th Jun 2010 19:10 in reply to "RE: brtfs"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"I'm pretty sure btrfs will already have matured quiet nicely."

Are you mad? It takes decades to iron out all bugs in a filesystem! ZFS has a dedicated team of among the best engineers in the world, and the test suite is very diligent. ZFS has been developed for years and is well tested. There are still some minor bugs, even 5 years after release. Sun has extensive Enterprise experience and know all about Enterprise storage.

If you really expect BTRFS, developed by some amateurs with no experience of Enterprise storage customers, to be stable at once - you are uneducated. Go and learn how to program. It will take decades to get it stable, just like ZFS. And Sun will not rest, ZFS develops in a rapid pace.

BTRFS is just a ZFS wanna-be. ZFS will add functionality, only afterwards BTRFS will mimic ZFS. BTRFS will never catch up. It is like Mac OS X and Win7

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: brtfs
by Laurence on Mon 7th Jun 2010 12:03 in reply to "brtfs"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

We are currently starting to see btrfs (also developed by Oracle btw ;-) gaining traction.

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 ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: brtfs
by fepede on Mon 7th Jun 2010 13:22 in reply to "RE: brtfs"
fepede Member since:
2005-11-14

"We are currently starting to see btrfs (also developed by Oracle btw ;-) gaining traction.

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!)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: brtfs
by vivainio on Mon 7th Jun 2010 13:24 in reply to "RE: brtfs"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Aside for better Linux support - I've not seen anything in BtrFS that's swayed my to switch from ZFS.


The fact that zfs has no sane Linux support (and possibly never will have) makes it like betamax - it's probably reasonably good technology, but it's not something you have access to in the first place, unless you switch to Solaris. And, I don't think that's the way the tide of the world is turning these days.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: brtfs
by phoenix on Mon 7th Jun 2010 19:29 in reply to "brtfs"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

btrfs doesn't support pooled storage.
btrfs doesn't support RAID levels above 1 (RAID10 is not higher than 1).
btrfs doesn't do end-to-end checksumming and self-healing.
btrfs doesn't do encryption (still an experimental feature in ZFS, but it's being worked on).
btrfs doesn't do deduplication.

Those are just some things I can think of off the top of my head. There's bound to be a lot more, considering the relative immaturity of the btrfs codebase compared to the ZFS codebase.

IOW, btrfs is where ZFS was 10 years ago. Explain to me again how btrfs is so much better, and will rule the storage world? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: brtfs
by Tuxie on Mon 7th Jun 2010 23:08 in reply to "RE: brtfs"
Tuxie Member since:
2009-04-22

One of the ZFS features I think is coolest is L2ARC which let you put a fast SSD as a read/write-cache in front of a pool of slower mechanical disks. The blocks you use most frequently will have a copy on the SSD for quick access. IIRC the cache currently doesn't survive a reboot though (it will start caching from scratch again), but they are working on fixing that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: brtfs
by diegocg on Wed 9th Jun 2010 13:25 in reply to "RE: brtfs"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Duh, btrfs has pool storage, patches to support other raid levels and end-to-end checksumming. Self-healing, deduplication and encryption will be added later once other basic features (shich as direct-IO) are added and stabilized.

Reply Parent Score: 2