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 428576
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: brtfs
by fepede on Mon 7th Jun 2010 13:22 UTC 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[3]: brtfs
by Laurence on Mon 7th Jun 2010 13:34 in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Unfortunately your argument basically consists of "ZFS wont run on Linux therefore it will fall into insignificance".

Well I'm sorry but there is a whole world of OSs outside of Linux and I happen to consider Solaris and FreeBSD to be very relevant platforms.

So please, give me a real reason why people should choose BtrFS over ZFS (particularly given ZFS is still a few years ahead of BtrFS in terms of testing and development).

So, who will need ZFS when it doesn't provide anything different from BTRFS and not being at the same production-level quality?


Erm, actually it is. ZFS has been "production-level quality" for a few years now.
Sure, new features are frequently making their way into development builds. But let's not confuse them with the excellent stable releases of ZFS.

Edited 2010-06-07 13:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: brtfs
by vivainio on Mon 7th Jun 2010 18:18 in reply to "RE[3]: brtfs"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

So please, give me a real reason why people should choose BtrFS over ZFS (particularly given ZFS is still a few years ahead of BtrFS in terms of testing and development).


A real reaseon is indeed the same as not using NTFS - it doesn't really work well with my platform of choice, while btrfs is definitely getting there. There will never really be a choice between the two. In the end it's btrfs vs. ext4 vs ext3, really.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: brtfs
by fepede on Mon 7th Jun 2010 20:15 in reply to "RE[3]: brtfs"
fepede Member since:
2005-11-14

So, who will need ZFS when it doesn't provide anything different from BTRFS and not being at the same production-level quality?


Erm, actually it is. ZFS has been "production-level quality" for a few years now.
Sure, new features are frequently making their way into development builds. But let's not confuse them with the excellent stable releases of ZFS.


Yes, you're right and I do agree with you! What I really meant was that the Linux/ZFS integration will need time to get stable, not that ZFS itself does.

With reference to the fact that there are a world of other OS out there beside Linux, you're right again, but the topic was about Linux now, so talking about the relevance of ZFS is implicitly referred to the Linux world.

I'm a great estimator of ZFS and not particular fan of BTRFS, but it seems that, being myself a Linux user, the latter will be my future.

Edited 2010-06-07 20:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: brtfs
by phoenix on Wed 9th Jun 2010 05:24 in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

I do agree with the first poster, and these are my points: ZFS and BTRFS are very similar feature wise,


Other than supporting in-filesystem snapshots, RAID-0, and RAID-1, they have very, very, very little in common. And BtrFS is missing over half of the features that ZFS supports. And BtrFS is still marked as "experimental, will eat your unicorns, don't use with live data". Hardly enterprise-ready.

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).


Attention, maybe. Support, hardly. Right now, it's "just another of a thousand filesystems" that are semi-supported by the Linux kernel. No distro ships with it enabled by default. No distro recommends using it. No companies have sprung up with products that use it internally. It's barely off the drawing board.

So, I'll guess that BTRFS will be accepted as a solid and reliable solution soon, while ZFS will be a lot behind.


Only if you mark "soon" as "at least 5 years from now". The way things are going, Linux 2.8 will be released by the time BtrFS is ready for use in places where ZFS is currently used.

So, who will need ZFS when it doesn't provide anything different from BTRFS and not being at the same production-level quality?


Gee, I don't know, maybe people that want to manage multi-TB datasets today instead of waiting for "soon" to roll around.

Reply Parent Score: 2