Re: Aw: Re: does btrfs have a future? (was: feature)
On 8/15/18 2:25 AM, Stefan K wrote:
> Did you think that "only" the RAID5/6 problem is the reason why btrfs is not so common? what is with the performance? and some (important) featrures (not futures ;) ) are missing to catch up ZFS.
>
> best regards
> Stefan
> (sorry for my bad english)
>
Your English is fine. Not perfect (no one ever is), but I know plenty of
native speakers who speak it worse than you.
In my opinion btrfs has a bad rap partially because of the RAID5/6
situation, but also because for a long time it was marked as
experimental, and there are some situations where data loss has occured
(I'm guessing because of RAID5/6). But as long as you avoid RAID5/6 and
stick to RAID1/10, you should be fine.
Ignoring Raid5/6 and similar, I don't know what features btrfs is
lacking that make ZFS more attractive. Btrfs does have *nice* features
that ZFS currently lacks, like adding and removing disks to the array
on-the-fly and intelligent data balancing while the array is mounted.
Btrfs's killer feature, imo, is its Copy-On-Write features, which you
can read about on the Arch Wiki:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Btrfs#Copy-on-Write_.28CoW.29
Btrfs also corrects read errors on-the-fly, something ZFS doesn't do,
but only if you are using a RAID with some level of redundancy.
Reply to: