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 8B2651384B4 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:01:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E59F21C0AF; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:01:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw2.antarean.org (gw2.antarean.org [141.105.125.208]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05FF121C07A for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 06:01:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4561F121704 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 05:59:43 +0000 () X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from gw2.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (gw2.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tc8znuZMLnrn for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 05:59:41 +0000 (%Z) Received: from data.antarean.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw2.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA42E12143E for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 05:59:41 +0000 () Received: from [10.20.13.30] (unknown [10.20.13.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 402E64C for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:01:16 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: References: <56437653.2080603@ramses-pyramidenbau.de> 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: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Fileserver with Raid + Crypto + BtrFS From: "J. Roeleveld" Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 07:01:22 +0100 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <6E4E3986-BCED-45E0-9768-819A9F66B560@antarean.org> X-Archives-Salt: d9e883cd-df08-450c-9931-6cdb1b6349f3 X-Archives-Hash: dc0f8287f972a81920a7b61444f04e51 On 12 November 2015 00:14:15 CET, "Nuno Magalhães" wrote: >On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Ralf > wrote: >> So I'm >> thinking about to migrate to Btrfs. > >Have you considered ZFS? >I currently have some disks with {fs}+LVM+RAID1 and others with a ZFS >mirror (no extra disks for ARC or anything), both approaches seem >manageable. To me btrfs still seems "not-ready-yet", but that's just >me. > >Can't offer any real benchmarks, i'm just starting out, but the >correct comparison seems to be btrfs vs ZFS, not btrfs vs fs+LVM+RAID. > >Cheers, >Nuno I think for small amount of disks (around 4) btrfs is a better option. For larger amounts (think 10+) ZFS is a better option. This is based on the design ideas and due to the lack of a robust raid5+ implementation in btrfs. ZFS requires more memory to perform well, compared to other filesystems. I believe btrfs doesn't have this requirement. I don't have any systems with this yet, but am planning on implementing btrfs on desktops and seevers with small amount of disks. For the servers with higher disk-counts, I am planning on implementing ZFS. -- Joost -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.