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 429266
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: brtfs
by Kebabbert on Wed 9th Jun 2010 19:16 UTC 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

RE[5]: brtfs
by Kebabbert on Thu 10th Jun 2010 10:04 in reply to "RE[4]: brtfs"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Boo. Ive read an article where BTRFS developers only realised that data integrity is important after Sun talked a lot about it. I have googled but can not find that article again. I will post it here when I find it.


About Ext* sucks and XFS is the way to go. If you read the article that you talk about, you will see that the problems in not in the filesystem. The problems is within the Linux kernel. Even if Linux used ZFS, it would not suffice as large enterprise storage servers. Read the articles.


About XFS, well, it does not protect data sufficiently well. Researchers shows that it and ReiserFS, JFS, etc can not handle data corruption well. Your data is unsafe. Hardly suitable for Enterprise storage, heh?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/how-microsoft-puts-your-data-at-r...

Reply Parent Score: 2