-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 16/07/2015 8:28 PM, Brian May wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 at 18:08 Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au <mailto:andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au>> wrote:
I've always thought that ZFS would be better than btrfs myself, but now I'm not as convinced of that.
I have always heard people say ZFS is better, Oracle should support ZFS not btrfs, etc. Don't know what to think myself.
Oracle inherited ZFS, it wasn't their own product; they were already working on btrfs and they also have OCFS2 (Oracle clustered file system 2). Consequently it isn't surprising to see that Oracle has all but abandoned ZFS, there are other reasons too, so it's unfortunate. It /may/ be that ZFS will be the betamax of file systems; but perhaps not, perhaps it just hasn't been given enough love to shine out and become the winner.
ZFS on BSD for sure, but btrfs on Linux ... probably better and will be much better yet. The big risk, as far as I am concerned, is that it relies too much on specific kernel versions and of course it relies upon Linux too. For a number of reasons, I would be happier if this was also available in the BSD world.
coreos stopped using btrfs by default. They say they encountered too many problems with it.
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/coreos-dev/NDEOXchAbuU
That forum thread was from over 6 months ago, that's a long time in btrfs speak. I'm not sure, but I think we need appliances that server btrfs file systems via iSCSI or other methods. Having an appliance that is limited to handling all the file system stuff and allowing it to have static kernel (as much as possible), or at least managed independently of other server requirements, such as web / mail / dns and other servers for instance. A. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlWoITMACgkQqBZry7fv4vtBFAEA1JReA4oc3TfLPqJUZdPtrfdw FKB879pMlSwUYFH3GikA/RNJ2r7UnE75pGVHfflvGkA/b9y7eom3T7XFQy5Dtxh3 =h/wJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----