Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Interview Covers Linux's So-called 'ZFS Killer'

  • Subject: [News] Interview Covers Linux's So-called 'ZFS Killer'
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 03:00:31 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Netscape / schestowitz.com
  • User-agent: KNode/0.10.4
Interview: Chris Mason about Btrfs

,----[ Quote ]
| Q: Several people might be interested what you think about ZFS, why you see a 
| need for Btrfs “despite of ZFS” (some people think ZFS is the solution for 
| everything for them).  
| 
|     Well, the short answer is that for Linux, there is no ZFS. I know about 
|     the FUSE port, but that isn’t a long term solution in terms of 
|     performance or enterprise workloads. ZFS has an impressive list of 
|     features (and clearly many happy users), but the real competition for 
|     Btrfs is other Linux filesystems.     
`----

http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/interview-chris-mason-about-btrfs/


Related:

Linux: Btrfs, File Data and Metadata Checksums

,----[ Quote ]
| Chris Mason announced an early alpha release of his new Btrfs 
| filesystem, "after the last FS summit, I started working on a new 
| filesystem that maintains checksums of all file data and metadata." He 
| listed the following features as "mostly implemented": "extent based file 
| storage (2^64 max file size), space efficient packing of small files, 
| space efficient indexed directories, dynamic inode allocation, writable 
| snapshots, subvolumes (separate internal filesystem roots), checksums on  
| data and metadata (multiple algorithms available), very fast offline 
| filesystem check".        
`----

http://kerneltrap.org/node/8376


OpenSolaris ZFS vs. Linux ext3 RAID5

,----[ Quote ]
| Few overarching conclusions can be drawn from the limited results of this 
| study. Certainly, there are situations in which the Solaris/RAID-Z1 
| configuration appears to outperform the Ubuntu/RAID-5 configuration. Many 
| questions remain regarding the large discrepancy in CPU usage for small-file 
| operations. Likewise, the Ubuntu/RAID-5 configuration appears to perform 
| slightly better in certain situations, though not overwhelmingly so. At best, 
| under these default configurations, one can say that overall the Solaris 
| configuration performs no worse, and indicates that it might perform better 
| under live operating conditions. The latter, though, is largely speculation.        
`----

http://www.prestonlee.com/archives/121

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index