Nux! <nux at li.nux.ro> wrote: > On 04.08.2012 20:32, Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: > > Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at 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 -- 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