From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S1JXG-0002jI-JG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:27:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1766EE0C71; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:27:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A89E0C58 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj10 with SMTP id j10so188484bkw.40 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:26:56 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of freemanrich@gmail.com designates 10.205.132.71 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.205.132.71; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of freemanrich@gmail.com designates 10.205.132.71 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=freemanrich@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=freemanrich@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.205.132.71]) by 10.205.132.71 with SMTP id ht7mr3154011bkc.19.1330183616763 (num_hops = 1); Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:26:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ErEhueuphw+3yHz5wXEm1YkGhI751al9cJjlUhKyets=; b=m/HrBHDvYgV4/KzWCfY6ZUsUvKUh+UdsRYT2dT3HQhpsEP9+XV3zhh9AJWyVBQZu1E X+5xLZHc4EFj2zMtUeUqQRjQP23slX5L0+uDIUAI8URQb4OBe0hq5j0knIQIwCCfP/Ck d+SR8XMxJ2Mvino0BB84XboTMnTaDiR1RLXR0= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.132.71 with SMTP id ht7mr2585450bkc.19.1330183616680; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:26:56 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.205.32.194 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:26:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4F47CF5C.4070508@gentoo.org> <20120224154327.61c051ad@gentoo.org> <3a6095b4d48c4163bb912d6fd608059f@HUBCAS2.cs.stonybrook.edu> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:26:56 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: A9W4-e76wapW8reWgSXCTiVGZ5s Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 4da4f232-2bdc-4833-93bf-928ef83638d0 X-Archives-Hash: b62cbb158459780f3e6ec470a85cbf9b On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: > FWIW, I'll second the ZFS > btrfs suggestion. Oh, if you need a safe COW filesystem today I'd definitely recommend ZFS over btrfs for sure, although I suspect the people who are most likely to take this sort of advice are also the sort of people who are most likely to not be running Gentoo. There are a bazillion problems with btrfs as it stands. However, fundamentally there is no reason to think that ZFS will remain better in the future, once the bugs are worked out. They're still focusing on keeping btrfs from hosing your data - tuning performance is not a priority yet. However, the b-tree design of btrfs should scale very well once the bugs are worked out. Rich