Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Aug 2010 19:14 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Thread beginning with comment 436415
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-11
No, ZFS is a re-orginisation of the layers to better fit the use-cases of today, instead of carrying on with the out-dated layering schemes from 30 years ago.
Big difference.
Think of it as the TCP/IP of the storage world. Afterall, TCP/IP is very much a "rampant layering violation" compared to the OSI network model. Yet no one has any issues with using it, and many even find it to be a better stack than the OSI one.
Btrfs supports RAID0, RAID1, and RAID10 directly "in the filesystem". It's even part of the mkfs.btrfs command (now, which is the real layering violation?). And Btrfs supports sub-volumes, making it a volume manager.
The problem is that it's not all that well integrated with the rest of the system (md/lvm, etc). And it doesn't support RAID levels above 1. And the tools for working with it are only just now getting to be usable (finally, a single btrfsctl command for everything, similar to the zfs command).
Give it 5 years, and it might be a usable alternative. Hopefully, by then, the whole Linux storage stack will be usable in enterprise-y situations.