From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF69E13838B for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C64F6E08EC; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:06:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.42.165]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24E8E083A for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 15:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.42.137] (helo=smtp6.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XUzlW-00015H-Uc for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:06:30 +0200 Received: from 53579160.cm-6-8c.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([83.87.145.96] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp6.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XUzlW-00080c-GS for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:06:30 +0200 Received: from andromeda.localnet (unknown [10.20.13.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 272384B for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:06:04 +0200 (CEST) From: "J. Roeleveld" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: File system testing Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:06:43 +0200 Message-ID: <5096657.HJqYGN9skN@andromeda> Organization: Antarean User-Agent: KMail/4.12.5 (Linux/3.14.14-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Ziggo-spambar: ---- X-Ziggo-spamscore: -4.8 X-Ziggo-spamreport: ALL_TRUSTED=-1,BAYES_00=-1.9,PROLO_TRUST_RDNS=-3,RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982,TW_ZF=0.077 X-Ziggo-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Flag: No X-Archives-Salt: 784ba35d-ac5d-4018-b032-627f96abc1b4 X-Archives-Hash: f820c50e2857fd8d1c0d23ed129b16fa On Friday, September 19, 2014 10:56:59 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:41 AM, James wrote: > > I think btrfs has tremendous potential. I tried ZFS a few times, > > but the installs are not part of gentoo, so they got borked > > uEFI, grubs to uuids, etc etc also were in the mix. That was almost > > a year ago. For what ever reason the clustering folks I have > > read and communicated with are using ext4, xfs and btrfs. Prolly > > mostly because those are mostly used in their (systemd) inspired) > > distros....? > > I do think that btrfs in the long-term is more likely to be mainstream > on linux, but I wouldn't be surprised if getting zfs working on Gentoo > is much easier now. Richard Yao is both a Gentoo dev and significant > zfs on linux contributor, so I suspect he is doing much of the latter > on the former. Don't have the link handy, but there is an howto about it that, when followed, will give a ZFS pool running on Gentoo in a very short time. (emerge zfs is the longest part of the whole thing) Not even needed to reboot. > > Yep. the license issue with ZFS is a real killer for me. Besides, > > as an old state-machine, C hack, anything with B-tree is fabulous. > > Prejudices? Yep, but here, I'm sticking with my gut. Multi port > > ram can do mavelous things with Btree data structures. The > > rest will become available/stable. Simply, I just trust btrfs, in > > my gut. > > I don't know enough about zfs to compare them, but the design of btrfs > has a certain amount of beauty/symmetry/etc to it IMHO. I only have > studied it enough to be dangerous and give some intro talks to my LUG, > but just about everything is stored in b-trees, the design allows both > fixed and non-fixed length nodes within the trees, and just about > everything about the filesystem is dynamic other than the superblocks, > which do little more than ID the filesystem and point to the current > tree roots. The important stuff is all replicated and versioned. > > I wouldn't be surprised if it shared many of these design features > with other modern filesystems, and I do not profess to be an expert on > modern filesystem design, so I won't make any claims about btrfs being > better/worse than other filesystems in this regard. However, I would > say that anybody interested in data structures would do well to study > it. I like the idea of both and hope BTRFS will also come with the raid-6-like features and good support for larger drive counts (I've got 16 available for the filestorage) to make it, for me, a viable alternative to ZFS. -- Joost