Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: > On 08/04/2012 08:32 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > I would not call it a rant but a food for thought. > > agreed! > > > ZFS was distributed to the public after it turned 4. > > ZFS is now in public use since more than 7 years. > > but ZFS has not had a stable release in Linux as yet, making it still be > negative in years. The codebase is likely to take a lot longer to get > into a stable status than btrfs. The ZFS code base is stable, the problem is the VFS interface in Linux and that applies to all filesystems.... > > So be careful with BTRFS until it was in wide use for at least 4 years. > > So, I'm all for mature and tested systems - always. But given the > problem domain, I think its wrong to generalise to that level. Lots of > people will use technology on the cutting edge, and lots more people > will adopt for feature matching with app domains. I, for one, am > grateful to these people for picking up the stuff in its early days and > working to find and then even fix issues as they come up. The ZFS developers have been forced by Sun to put their home directoriers on ZFS in 2001. Does this apply to BTRFS too? > > 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. > > the other problem with zfs is its large RAM requirements - and extremely > poor 32bit support. This is not a problem as nobody encourages you to put ZFS into toys or phones. With the typical amout of RAM in today's machines, ZFS is happy. Jörg -- EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js at cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily