Nux! nux@li.nux.ro wrote:
On 04.08.2012 20:32, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005. ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not
ZFS is the best I know for filesystems >= 2 TB and in case you need flexible snapshots. ZFS has just one single problem, it is slow in case you ask it to verify a stable FS state, UFS is much faster here, but this ZFS "problem" is true for all filesystems on Linux because of the implementation of the Linux buffer cache.
Given your expertise then, can you say how mature/stable/usable is ZFS on Linux, specifically CentOS? That's what everybody is probably most interested in.
ZFS is stable on FreeBSD since aprox. 3 years.
ZFS itself is also stable.
I cannot speak for the stability of Linux, but I've read that there is a group that works on a ZFS integration. The problem in this area is that Linux comes with a very limited VFS interface and porters would either need to reduce ZFS functionality or ignore the VFS interface from Linux.
Jörg