From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-164287-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558AE138CD0
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 19:27:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FBEFE08B5;
Mon, 18 May 2015 19:27:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com (mail-ie0-f171.google.com [209.85.223.171])
(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 1BB52E0871
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 19:27:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iepj10 with SMTP id j10so30733947iep.3
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 18 May 2015 12:27:48 -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:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=OKtE4iGlvPJHJK/B4jFrzrf2OF9izSXUoUkhGocKLQM=;
b=HcaKct2YeGSQVOpValddG7M8FVBpvGP5Z0zchAmMexOkkSBGM5bAzELSXMWg+OuWcz
z2F7ELUxeYVRxAeznDeRHSjXJR3yoKBfh0vSv3E7FykuzbvQjIWV0/luqvM5ONwj3t50
p8ON9wuY4JDbu9EOSBc3fFEoCsr4p5jOlaWHVGyViq93xmb42d1+UPb8Xkl0B8pydtpq
Yez9clO20LrRR8jviV55a4eD8314p7jqdSwIhoG0vymtUBklxt5BaNS4cMGB+yt+qf3X
9yBMj3aOdRETxb4XyrC7t9j2WC9jfqid4UX5OYFTSSBM3FkYNOp2JDgwVHch+AgGRCMR
E45Q==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.143.97 with SMTP id sd1mr16574708igb.25.1431977268416;
Mon, 18 May 2015 12:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.159.81 with HTTP; Mon, 18 May 2015 12:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADqA9ubJSX7VBcuHWrueVwFi3hDcNLJZQRXCP9r3ghGM7nqZKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADqA9uYkvDWYGfrHtBmR+wQuCx5-ffHO+tw0jtiMSnwdKmv7DQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1512794.C4Cbul46Ps@wstn>
<CAGfcS_m_7dL=ai-qLegZhWrVNQm6S54oCFvCRpMt9cy3R6Ja_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<29229163.gfWtQPVkRf@wstn>
<5558EDD9.6070405@xunil.at>
<CADqA9uay_iwK1kmw-K2o5+xS+q85okgQBE9kh+sTv6ON_8xApw@mail.gmail.com>
<5559115A.9010303@xunil.at>
<CAGfcS_=KjNsZZm4Vecm4TQ76ecdpZrqASekP4cgvypZ8nq_VtA@mail.gmail.com>
<CADqA9ubJSX7VBcuHWrueVwFi3hDcNLJZQRXCP9r3ghGM7nqZKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 15:27:48 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: HSJdrt_BM84MvwHb-Rt0DwSVLWU
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_npiTb=4KQfdfAeYbCicB6B_SB690NRYpMByDgPNjByWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Tips for fresh install with GRUB2+RAID1+LVM2
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: da3063c7-c4ac-447b-8b14-99798be7c153
X-Archives-Hash: 87abff67368a2396090aee51c9975b86
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Nuno Magalh=C3=A3es <nunomagalhaes@eu.ipp.=
pt> wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On the other hand, both btrfs and zfs will get you a level of data
>> security that you simply won't get from ext4+lvm+mdadm - protection
>> from silent corruption.
>
> That's one of the advantages i see in ZFS. Do you use it frequently?
> Can anyone comment on its memory usage (without dedicated SSDs for
> ARC)?
>
> Maybe i'd use the 4 drives as a ZFS pool.
>
> For now LVM complains about duplicate PVs (when pvcreate /dev/md0),
> i'll have to fiddle with the filters in lvm.conf
>
I use btrfs heavily, but not ZFS. The feature set overlaps, but ZFS
has more enterprise-oriented features and is more mature, and btrfs
has more single-workstation-oriented features and is less mature. For
example, ZFS has features like write-intent logging and read caching
that are useful especially on large arrays. Btrfs, on the other hand,
lets you mix different-sized drive in a single redundancy unit or
add/remove devices to a single redundancy unit, while in ZFS you can
have multiple vdevs in a zpool but you cannot add/remove drives from a
vdev or fully utilize drives of different sizes in a vdev. That is
something which is very useful when you have a 3-drive RAID and want
to make it a 4-drive RAID, but it isn't terribly useful when you want
to add 5 drives to a 30-drive SAN.
I'm not sure how many of those differences are design-limitations vs
just being what devs have spent their time on. I'm sure over time the
feature set of both will grow and further overlap each other.
However, right now with the current focus I'd expect ZFS to continue
to focus on features useful in very large deployments, and btrfs on
features useful in small deployments.
--=20
Rich