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 429182
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: brtfs
by diegocg on Wed 9th Jun 2010 13:25 UTC 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

RE[3]: brtfs
by phoenix on Wed 9th Jun 2010 14:46 in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

RAID 5/6 support has not been checked in yet, nor has it really been made available for testing beyond the two devs working on it. Thus, it doesn't support RAID levels above 1 yet.

Nor does it really support pooled storage, as you still have to specify the harddrives that will be used for each filesystem when you create the filesystem. There's no pool management yet, just filesystem management.

So, like I said, btrfs is where zfs was 10 years ago. It's not a replacement for zfs in any way at this time.

Maybe in 5 years, it'll be where zfs is now. But it's not there yet.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: brtfs
by diegocg on Wed 9th Jun 2010 17:31 in reply to "RE[3]: brtfs"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Duh (again). Btrfs does pool storage from day 1. Just because the command line tool doesn't autodetect where the pool storage is it doesn't mean it isn't there.

By the way, ZFS didn't exist 10 years ago. And Btrfs is 3 years old and it is powering my Fedora 12 install since November without oopses, data corruption or problems of any other kind. It sure isn't ready for enterprise adoption, but it's certainly stable enought to be adopted by geeks, and it already has some nice features that ZFS doesn't. So I don't think I'll have to wait that much to see it used in enterprise distros (did i mention that RHEL 6 will offer it as an experimental option?)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: brtfs
by Kebabbert on Wed 9th Jun 2010 19:16 in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

BTRFS has end-to-end checksumming? I doubt it is well designed unless I see proof. BTRFS developers only recently understood that data integrity is important and decided to add that as an afterthought. What a fail. You need to design the whole file system from the ground up. For instance, reiserfs, JFS, XFS, etc nor raid-5 nor raid-6 does not give a good protection.

As I said, you need lots of experience from Enterprise storage to know how to tackle problems that arise from large scale storage.

Linux does not suffice for large scale storage. It sucks badly on Enterprise storage according to an storage expert:
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/sans/features/article.php/374...

http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/sans/features/article.php/374...



BTW, ZFS was announced 2004. But it was prototyped and worked on, several years earlier. It is highly possible ZFS has existed 10 years today.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: brtfs
by diegocg on Wed 9th Jun 2010 20:00 in reply to "RE[3]: brtfs"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Boo. It was there from first day. You haven't documented yourself about the most basic design ideas of Btrfs, yet you want to preach that it sucks.

About the articles: Yes, Ext* suck for big storage, that's not news. That's why SGI uses XFS in their boxes.

Reply Parent Score: 2