On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 08:12:20PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Anything else I should consider?
some things that occur to me: 1. zfs's "complexity" is more than offset by the length of time it has been in real world production use. ZFS is a production quality filesystem now, and btrfs really isn't yet. 2. zfs is very "sysadmin-friendly". and reliable. 3. whether compression would help, and what kinds of compression is offered by the filesystem. iirc, btrfs offers compression on subvolumes. zfs does too, and also offers several different compression methods. 4. backup, of course. e.g. LTO-4 or 5 tapes to backup the online data on btrfs or zfs or a second system to do rsync or snapshot + zfs send backups to. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #22: monitor resolution too high