[CentOS] compare zfs xfs and jfs o

Sun Aug 5 09:50:20 UTC 2012
Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de>

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. 


 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