On Wednesday, 12 October 2016 2:46:01 PM AEDT Craig Sanders via luv-main wrote:
yes, but you can't pipe `btrfs send` to `zfs recv` and expect to get anything useful. my backup pool is zfs.
In the early days the plan was to have btrfs receive not rely on BTRFS, so you could send a snapshot to a non-BTRFS filesystem. I don't know if this is a feature they continued with.
If you had 2*NVMe devices it would probably give better performance than 4*SATA and might be cheaper. That would also leave more SATA slots free.
yes, that would certainly be a LOT faster. can't see any way it could be cheaper. i'd have to get a more expensive brand of ssd plus i'd need an nvme pci-e card or two.
Last time I was buying there wasn't much price difference between SATA and NVMe devices. Usually buying 2 medium size devices is cheaper than 4 small devices.
PCI-e slots are in very short supply. and my m/b doesn't have any nvme sockets.
That's a problem for you then. Also most motherboards don't support booting from NVMe at the moment, there are many ways of working around this (chaining boot from CD, USB, etc) but it's an annoyance.
Intel has some very nice (and expensive) high-end CPUs, but their low-end and mid-range CPUs are more expensive than old AMD CPUs without offering much improvement....might make sense for a new system, but not as an upgrade. Every time I look into switching to Intel, it turns out I'll have to spend around $1000 to get roughly similar performance to what I have now with a 6 year old AMD CPU. I'm not going to spend that kind of money without a really significant benefit.
I keep getting such great systems from e-waste. Mostly Intel CPUs because there seems to be a correlation between people who buy Intel CPUs and people who dispose of systems after a few years. I'll try and get some more for LUV members.
It's really changing things. For most users 2TB is more than enough storage even for torrenting movies.
btw, for torrenting on ZFS, you need to create a separate dataset with recordsize=16K (instead of the default 128K) to avoid COW fragmentation. configure deluge or whatever to download to that and then move the finished torrent to another filesystem.
probably same or similar for btrfs.
The early versions of BTRFS used a 4K allocation block size. Recent versions (the version in Debian/Jessie and maybe before) use a 16K allocation block size. There is no way for BTRFS to use the kind of large block allocation that ZFS does in that regard. This sucks for many use cases but means you don't lose anything for torrenting in this example.
i'd still want to buy them in pairs, for RAID-1/RAID-10 (actually, ZFS mirrored pairs)
The failure modes of SSD are quite different to the failure modes of spinning media. I expect it will be some years before there is adequate research into how SSDs fail and some more years before filesystems develop to work around them. ZFS and WAFL do some interesting things to work around known failure modes of spinning media, they won't be as reliable on SSD as they might be because of the spinning media optimisation. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/