On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 7/10/2014 5:41 PM, Peter Ross wrote:
Overall I hear a lot of "btrfs is having this or that issues" which I never followed up properly. But it makes me wary.
I don't know if I could ever trust BTRFS ... I want to, but I see too many issues, far too often and file system problems are the last ones I want due to a buggy implementation or failed feature adjustments that just plain break things...
Every filesystem has problems in the early days. Only a small minority of BTRFS problems caused data loss. I've had a few serious problems (including ones that required backup/format/restore) and none of them lost any data AFAIK.
I am using ZFS on FreeBSD for at least 3 years in production now (and upgrade the kernel regularly when needed) without any issues.
Besides of early problems with nearly full ZFS and memory which were known.
On both fronts there seems to be improvement. E.g. I have 92% full ZFS volumes which are still performing - there was a 80% "warning" in the past, and I run ZFS on 3GB and 4GB RAM boxes and do not see issues.
How much storage?
RAM was always a problem with ZFS, it seems to be a problem of the past now though and ZFS seems so much better.
My impression is that the only way ZFS can be said to no longer have a RAM problem is that RAM is cheap enough that no ZFS server will have less than 8G and everyone knows to turn of dedup. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/