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 1A54B138C9D for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 01:24:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98C9FE0943; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 01:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com (mail-ig0-f171.google.com [209.85.213.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DE4AE0936 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 01:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igbhj9 with SMTP id hj9so37074334igb.1 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:24:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=5H14C2Ww2Yzvgts6tiUV9R6v53kqhCMdWhvij7DL8xg=; b=tcuraQfKHPiqyZmy87j5bLcy4o6IY8YwKs5Ye1UBAjTizxo30k2j2gnDHK9y1f0li7 Q1sHbGJGy1J17f6DVua+sJnRcHUc5dYoUXi1hT8iS7OsopoClXimTVVNiQF6honTigjH aFQ2HSkeTSmamW1Jt8zqud5+dBWb4a/srb1oJL4qutIenSzDX4/YrQQTZwahUek5yEy1 +L0bOzIbst4bNVBV51flX2VjSM2vIfXcOOru9BbrtiYx90oOrF7xGuEhwrjwm9Vc/PRX 5IZDEfUrQGu5kqCsItlSuKVH44V8pAkYcZ8s3MF/2OfdEY1Vr11zbgWAQzV9w6V98nZu 3Www== 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 X-Received: by 10.50.29.40 with SMTP id g8mr9862122igh.41.1430270658964; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.48.66 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:24:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <553F474E.4040101@gmail.com> <553FA0DD.1090101@gmail.com> <20150428162448.160e1683@digimed.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:24:18 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: DP_qvpwPkw31OAAxlCIsLOIR02g Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Hard drive storage questions From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 1388ae3f-33f5-4348-9f60-ef28572f21b8 X-Archives-Hash: f7537dbbac8c297bd9e12a9b021e7e5b On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:02 PM, walt wrote: > On 04/28/2015 08:24 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:01:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >>> Personally, I like the ZFS approach and do it all in software, catching >>> errors that RAID misses. >> >> The same is also possible with BTRFS, > > I have the impression (without knowing what I'm talking about) that BTRFS > was created to be just like ZFS, minus the software licensing problems. > > Is my impression right or wrong? Kinda. Same sort of idea, and the licensing obviously has a big part in it. The underlying designs are different, which means that when fully mature each will likely have different pros/cons, which is great since we can all pick/choose what we need. The other difference is that ZFS is targeted more at enterprise / large-scale use, and btrfs is targeted more as a general-purpose filesystem that you might use on a single-disk PC. That isn't to say that either can't be used in either situation, but you can definitely see where there has been more focus in feature development. For example, with zfs you can not only have large pools of drives, but you can also bind them into smaller redundancy pools. So, you can have 10 "raid6" arrays bound together which ensures that the scale of rebuilds is limited while giving you a common pool of space. On the other hand, with btrfs you can have a 3-disk raid5 and turn it into a 4-disk raid5 without having to copy/restore all your data (or you could turn a 3-disk raid1 into a 4-disk raid5, and even switch halfway so that half your data is in raid1 mode and half in raid5). That is the sort of thing that is handy in a small PC where you don't just have stacks of disks lying around to build fresh new arrays from, but less important for a big enterprise SAN where you don't need to add one disk at a time to a 40-disk storage unit. I'm sure many features exclusive to either btrfs or zfs will eventually make their way to the other. However, their differing focuses make it likely that some features will mature faster than others. And of course btrfs has been taking a fairly long time to mature - it just doesn't seem like as serious of an enterprise-y project. But, neither is Gentoo. :) -- Rich