On 01/17/2012 02:36 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: > On 01/17/2012 09:29 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: >> From: Nataraj Sent: January 16, 2012 23:56 >>> The ZFSonlinux project from LLNL looks promising (native mode kernel >>> implementation, pool version 28), although the version that supports >>> mountable filesystems is still in the RC stage. I would want >>> some solid >>> testing before deploying in a backup system. >>> >>> http://zfsonlinux.org/ >> Hi Nataraj: >> >> Thanks. I had not seen this one. It does look more promising than the >> zfs-fuse package. >> > As much as I could deduce, Btrfs outperforms ZFS, and it is at the > moment only missing btrfsck (in development). And it supports (almost) > all features. > > I was really hot for ZFS, but I have seen one thorough test with various > sizes of data and in some cases Btrfs outperformed ZFS, but I cleaned my > Firefox cache and history for the first time in at least a year :( and I > can not find it now. > > Btrfs is pushed and sponsored by Oracle, for their uses, and since ZFS > is also theirs, I guess they will implement all ZFS's good featuries. > > Is btrfs widely deployed and running solidly in production environments? I thought the dedup code for btrfs was still a bunch of patches that had to be applied and not in the mainstream implementation yet. The LLNL zfs port is a loadable kernel module. Nataraj