ZFS vs BTRFS

[Durval Menezes]

Hi folks,

Looks like a good, detailed comparison (even if the author seems somewhat
biased towards ZFS):
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs

Cheers,
--
Durval.

Hello folks,

I have greatly valued the ability to use ZFS via FUSE.
I would even say that without the zfs-fuse project I would have not
bothered with ZFS at all.
For years now I've had a storage system that was reliable and performed
well for my purposes.
Also true is the fact that I have learned a great deal from the response
of the zfs-fuse guys on this list/group.
So, I second those thanks :)

I third that!
zfs-fuse simply rocks, and I dare to say that there would be no zfsonlinux
project (at least not for me) if not for zfs-fuse.
Cheers,
--
Durval.

My good news of the day ! :)

Never too many times you can say thank you for something good.
Been so happy using ZFS-FUSE for years, and now with ZoL quickly
improving yet not quite stable, it's so nice to be able to go back to
ZFS-FUSE to get stability for my pool, when ZoL fails me.
Thank you for taking the first hard steps in bringing ZFS to Linux, and
for doing it so god naggit well!
You're beautiful people :)
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
my zfs-fuse git repository : http://rainemu.swishparty.co.**
uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=**summary<http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary>

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Emmanuel Anne]

Arf, of course, it's rudd-o, that is the main site where zfs-fuse was
(still is ?) hosted, so it's biased ! :)

Post by Durval Menezes
Hi folks,
Looks like a good, detailed comparison (even if the author seems somewhat
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs
Cheers,
--
Durval.

Hello folks,

I have greatly valued the ability to use ZFS via FUSE.
I would even say that without the zfs-fuse project I would have not
bothered with ZFS at all.
For years now I've had a storage system that was reliable and performed
well for my purposes.
Also true is the fact that I have learned a great deal from the response
of the zfs-fuse guys on this list/group.
So, I second those thanks :)

I third that!
zfs-fuse simply rocks, and I dare to say that there would be no
zfsonlinux project (at least not for me) if not for zfs-fuse.
Cheers,
--
Durval.

My good news of the day ! :)

Never too many times you can say thank you for something good.
Been so happy using ZFS-FUSE for years, and now with ZoL quickly
improving yet not quite stable, it's so nice to be able to go back to
ZFS-FUSE to get stability for my pool, when ZoL fails me.
Thank you for taking the first hard steps in bringing ZFS to Linux,
and for doing it so god naggit well!
You're beautiful people :)
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
my zfs-fuse git repository : http://rainemu.swishparty.co.**
uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=**summary<http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary>

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--

To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Durval Menezes]

Hi Emmanuel,

Post by Emmanuel Anne
Arf, of course, it's rudd-o, that is the main site where zfs-fuse was
(still is ?) hosted, so it's biased ! :)

LOL, I didn't know! Now that explains everything! :-)

Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Durval Menezes
Hi folks,
Looks like a good, detailed comparison (even if the author seems somewhat
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs
Cheers,
--
Durval.

Hello folks,

I have greatly valued the ability to use ZFS via FUSE.
I would even say that without the zfs-fuse project I would have not
bothered with ZFS at all.
For years now I've had a storage system that was reliable and performed
well for my purposes.
Also true is the fact that I have learned a great deal from the
response of the zfs-fuse guys on this list/group.
So, I second those thanks :)

I third that!
zfs-fuse simply rocks, and I dare to say that there would be no
zfsonlinux project (at least not for me) if not for zfs-fuse.
Cheers,
--
Durval.

My good news of the day ! :)

Never too many times you can say thank you for something good.
Been so happy using ZFS-FUSE for years, and now with ZoL quickly
improving yet not quite stable, it's so nice to be able to go back to
ZFS-FUSE to get stability for my pool, when ZoL fails me.
Thank you for taking the first hard steps in bringing ZFS to Linux,
and for doing it so god naggit well!
You're beautiful people :)
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
my zfs-fuse git repository : http://rainemu.swishparty.co.**
uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=**summary<http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary>

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--

To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[FnordMan]

Post by Durval Menezes
Hi folks,
Looks like a good, detailed comparison (even if the author seems somewhat
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs
Cheers,
--
Durval.

There's one big difference: Btrfs is getting better with time. ZFS is sorta
stagnant at the moment.
As soon as it's got RAID-5 support I was planning on converting my arrays
over from ZFS as it looks like ZFS is sorta dead thanks to Oracle.

[Bud Bundy]

I played with btrfs for a little bit:
- it's not stable enough. And they display a warning when you install it,
it's just an alpha or whatever. I've had a pool dissapear for no reason.
The pool mounts from one device, but fails to mount from another device
(you should be able to mount btrfs by pointing it to any device in the
pool).
- the JBOD mode is useless. I had 2 500 GB drives, and I added a 2 TB
drive to the pool. My available space did not increase by anywhere near 2
TB. It seems to be in the design how btrfs allocates space. You can
google this problem. Some references (
http://serverfault.com/questions/213861/multi-device-btrfs-filesystem-with-disk-of-different-size
)
- no scrub built in. You have to run an externally developed script which
effectively reads all files to /dev/null and if there's a problem btrfs
complains to syslogs.

Of course most of these things will be fixed. So maybe in years time I'll
switch over. But for now I'm really really happy with zfsonlinux.

Post by FnordMan

Post by Durval Menezes
Hi folks,
Looks like a good, detailed comparison (even if the author seems somewhat
biased towards ZFS): http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-**
free-software/ways-in-which-**zfs-is-better-than-btrfs<http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs>
Cheers,
--
Durval.

There's one big difference: Btrfs is getting better with time. ZFS is
sorta stagnant at the moment.
As soon as it's got RAID-5 support I was planning on converting my arrays
over from ZFS as it looks like ZFS is sorta dead thanks to Oracle.
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Fajar A. Nugraha]

Post by Bud Bundy
- no scrub built in.

There is :)

$ btrfs sc
usage: btrfs scrub <command> [options] <path>|<device>

btrfs scrub start [-Bdqr] <path>|<device>
Start a new scrub
btrfs scrub cancel <path>|<device>
Cancel a running scrub
btrfs scrub resume [-Bdqr] <path>|<device>
Resume previously canceled or interrupted scrub
btrfs scrub status [-dR] <path>|<device>
Show status of running or finished scrub


Depending on what distro/version you use, it might not be in your
distro kernel/tools yet though.

Post by Bud Bundy
Of course most of these things will be fixed.

For me it's qgroups and send/receive. I've seen the patches (and
probably have been merged upstream), but it's definitely not in
mainstream distro yet.

Post by Bud Bundy
So maybe in years time I'll
switch over.

next Ubuntu LTS, perhaps :)

[Emmanuel Anne]

Post by Bud Bundy
- the JBOD mode is useless. I had 2 500 GB drives, and I added a 2 TB
drive to the pool. My available space did not increase by anywhere near 2
TB. It seems to be in the design how btrfs allocates space. You can
google this problem. Some references (
http://serverfault.com/questions/213861/multi-device-btrfs-filesystem-with-disk-of-different-size

Thanks for the link, very informative. I didn't know about the metadata
raid1 as a default.
I'd say it's the main drawback of btrfs for me so far : sometimes you find
out after using it for a very long time that you should have used some
other settings at the mkfs.btrfs call, except they can't be changed
afterwards unless you recreate everything... Very time consuming and
annoying.

Except that it's very stable for me, never had any problem, the fact that
Linus uses it daily helped me to decide it was not so alpha after all (even
if he probably has a ton of backups !).
To summarize I'd say btrfs is better at low level (faaast !), but zfs is
better at high level (easier to use, many more features).
You have to be sure about the features you'll need when you switch.

[Durval Menezes]

Howdy Emmanuel, FNordMan and Budric (if you are still listening here),

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Bud Bundy
- the JBOD mode is useless. I had 2 500 GB drives, and I added a 2 TB
drive to the pool. My available space did not increase by anywhere near 2
TB. It seems to be in the design how btrfs allocates space. You can
google this problem. Some references (
http://serverfault.com/questions/213861/multi-device-btrfs-filesystem-with-disk-of-different-size

Thanks for the link, very informative. I didn't know about the metadata
raid1 as a default.
I'd say it's the main drawback of btrfs for me so far : sometimes you find
out after using it for a very long time that you should have used some
other settings at the mkfs.btrfs call, except they can't be changed
afterwards unless you recreate everything... Very time consuming and
annoying.
Except that it's very stable for me, never had any problem, the fact that
Linus uses it daily helped me to decide it was not so alpha after all (even
if he probably has a ton of backups !).
To summarize I'd say btrfs is better at low level (faaast !), but zfs is
better at high level (easier to use, many more features).
You have to be sure about the features you'll need when you switch.

Been three years and change... care to post an update re: how's your use of
btrfs vs zfs going?

Cheers,
--
Durval.

[Budric Bundy]

I started using btrfs on single drives for the main system - my laptop and
desktop PC. It's an easily supported /boot partition; and provides
snapshot features. I don't have many complaints and haven't lost my data
(so far). One minor complaint is I can't use it to store swap files.

For RAID5 (RAIDZ) volumes I still use ZFS. It just works and I haven't had
a big reason to switch. I don't feel that confident in BTRFS RAID5. The
wiki says it's stable but may have inconsistent parity on power failure:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 , and the RAID code seems to
still be getting routine RAID5 fixes
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-For-Linux-4.3 . I
don't know if ZFS suffers from same corner case issue.

Although I have run into an issue with zfs send/receive. I do backups by
taking a snapshot on the main server and doing incremental or full sends.
At one point my backup machine, which had Ubuntu OS same as main server,
died and I replaced it with Arch and AUR zfs-git and imported the pool (and
ran scrub). But the the zfs send/receive failed with stream checksum error
- for both incremental and full backups.

I ran memtest86+, scrubbed both pools, checked that pool and filesystems
are same version. The only thing I can see that's different is ashift=12
on one system and 9 on the other, but sends were working before when
destination was an Ubuntu machine. This led me to search and find a few
similar posts (for example
https://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinux.org/forum/#!topic/zfs-discuss/M69pMAEZekY).
It seems in general don't store ZFS send dumps (for example on tapes),
because you're not guaranteed to import them back in - either because of
data degradation while on tape, or version changes in the system.

The problem seems to have gone away with ZFS versions 0.6.5.1-1~trusty and
zfs-git 0.6.5.1_r0_g159270e_4.1.6_1-1 on the two systems.

Post by Durval Menezes
Howdy Emmanuel, FNordMan and Budric (if you are still listening here),

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Bud Bundy
- the JBOD mode is useless. I had 2 500 GB drives, and I added a 2 TB
drive to the pool. My available space did not increase by anywhere near 2
TB. It seems to be in the design how btrfs allocates space. You can
google this problem. Some references (
http://serverfault.com/questions/213861/multi-device-btrfs-filesystem-with-disk-of-different-size

Thanks for the link, very informative. I didn't know about the metadata
raid1 as a default.
I'd say it's the main drawback of btrfs for me so far : sometimes you
find out after using it for a very long time that you should have used some
other settings at the mkfs.btrfs call, except they can't be changed
afterwards unless you recreate everything... Very time consuming and
annoying.
Except that it's very stable for me, never had any problem, the fact that
Linus uses it daily helped me to decide it was not so alpha after all (even
if he probably has a ton of backups !).
To summarize I'd say btrfs is better at low level (faaast !), but zfs is
better at high level (easier to use, many more features).
You have to be sure about the features you'll need when you switch.

Been three years and change... care to post an update re: how's your use
of btrfs vs zfs going?
Cheers,
--
Durval.
--
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-fuse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Durval Menezes]

Hello Budric,

Post by Budric Bundy
I started using btrfs on single drives for the main system - my laptop and
desktop PC. It's an easily supported /boot partition; and provides
snapshot features. I don't have many complaints and haven't lost my data
(so far).

This is encouraging (I guess ;-)).

Post by Budric Bundy
One minor complaint is I can't use it to store swap files.

I don't think you can do that with ZFS either (but I might be wrong).

Post by Budric Bundy
For RAID5 (RAIDZ) volumes I still use ZFS. It just works and I haven't
had a big reason to switch. I don't feel that confident in BTRFS RAID5.
The wiki says it's stable but may have inconsistent parity on power
failure: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 , and the RAID
code seems to still be getting routine RAID5 fixes
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-For-Linux-4.3 .
I don't know if ZFS suffers from same corner case issue.

This seems to be the classic RAID5 write-hole issue, which is inherently a
design failure for RAID5 itself; ZFS does *not* suffer from it, in fact
RAIDZ was designed from the start to be immune to it (and that's why it's
called RAIDZ and not RAID5). Amazing that BTRFS hasn't solved it from the
start too, it's a well known (and well documented) issue with a know
solution for COW filesystems.

BTW: a "power off" issue doesn't happen only at power off, but at any
instant the kernel drivers are unable to write to the disk, for example the
controller goes south, or the kernel crashes hard. Then you'd be exposed to
a write-hole too.

Post by Budric Bundy
Although I have run into an issue with zfs send/receive. I do backups by
taking a snapshot on the main server and doing incremental or full sends.
At one point my backup machine, which had Ubuntu OS same as main server,
died and I replaced it with Arch and AUR zfs-git and imported the pool (and
ran scrub). But the the zfs send/receive failed with stream checksum error
- for both incremental and full backups.

Seems like a zfs stream version issue. Have you checked it
with zstreamdump, and compared the result with the same from a stream
generated on your destination platform?

Post by Budric Bundy
I ran memtest86+,

memtest86+ is a lousy checker, in my experience. Much better is to
leave dledford's
memtest <http://people.redhat.com/dledford/memtest.shtml> or similar
running over one night or three. Burning servers with it before putting
them into production, or when weird things have happened, has detected
marginal memory dimms (and even motherboards) more often than not.

Post by Budric Bundy
scrubbed both pools, checked that pool and filesystems are same version.
The only thing I can see that's different is ashift=12 on one system and 9
on the other, but sends were working before when destination was an Ubuntu
machine.

Yep, different ashifts wouldn't do that.

Post by Budric Bundy
This led me to search and find a few similar posts (for example
https://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinux.org/forum/#!topic/zfs-discuss/M69pMAEZekY).
It seems in general don't store ZFS send dumps (for example on tapes),
because you're not guaranteed to import them back in - either because of
data degradation while on tape, or version changes in the system.

If you do have to store zfs send dumps anywhere instead of applying them
directly, I would store a sha256 sum along with it (to be able to check
later whether it got corrupted). But the recommendation above is sound, the
best is to apply it immediately.

Post by Budric Bundy
The problem seems to have gone away with ZFS versions 0.6.5.1-1~trusty and
zfs-git 0.6.5.1_r0_g159270e_4.1.6_1-1 on the two systems.

So perhaps it was a stream imcompatibility issue between versions...

Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Budric Bundy

Post by Durval Menezes
Howdy Emmanuel, FNordMan and Budric (if you are still listening here),

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Bud Bundy
- the JBOD mode is useless. I had 2 500 GB drives, and I added a 2 TB
drive to the pool. My available space did not increase by anywhere near 2
TB. It seems to be in the design how btrfs allocates space. You can
google this problem. Some references (
http://serverfault.com/questions/213861/multi-device-btrfs-filesystem-with-disk-of-different-size

Thanks for the link, very informative. I didn't know about the metadata
raid1 as a default.
I'd say it's the main drawback of btrfs for me so far : sometimes you
find out after using it for a very long time that you should have used some
other settings at the mkfs.btrfs call, except they can't be changed
afterwards unless you recreate everything... Very time consuming and
annoying.
Except that it's very stable for me, never had any problem, the fact
that Linus uses it daily helped me to decide it was not so alpha after all
(even if he probably has a ton of backups !).
To summarize I'd say btrfs is better at low level (faaast !), but zfs is
better at high level (easier to use, many more features).
You have to be sure about the features you'll need when you switch.

Been three years and change... care to post an update re: how's your use
of btrfs vs zfs going?
Cheers,
--
Durval.
--
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"zfs-fuse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-fuse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Gordan Bobic]

Post by Budric Bundy
I started using btrfs on single drives for the main system - my laptop and
desktop PC. It's an easily supported /boot partition; and provides
snapshot features. I don't have many complaints and haven't lost my data
(so far). One minor complaint is I can't use it to store swap files.

I'm not sure why to even bother considering BTRFS, though. I have ZoL on my
64-bit x86 hardware, including /boot and rootfs. On my ARM hardware I use
zfs-fuse for the rootfs. The only minor annoyance with the latter is that
file caps don't appear to be supported so updating a package with files
that require it fails, but it isn't that big a deal.

Post by Budric Bundy
For RAID5 (RAIDZ) volumes I still use ZFS. It just works and I haven't
had a big reason to switch. I don't feel that confident in BTRFS RAID5.
The wiki says it's stable but may have inconsistent parity on power
failure: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 , and the RAID
code seems to still be getting routine RAID5 fixes
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-For-Linux-4.3 .
I don't know if ZFS suffers from same corner case issue.
Although I have run into an issue with zfs send/receive. I do backups by
taking a snapshot on the main server and doing incremental or full sends.
At one point my backup machine, which had Ubuntu OS same as main server,
died and I replaced it with Arch and AUR zfs-git and imported the pool (and
ran scrub). But the the zfs send/receive failed with stream checksum error
- for both incremental and full backups.

Very odd. I have never had such a problem, and I regularly do zfs
send/receive between different implementations (ZoL to zfs-fuse) and I have
never seen it fail to work.

If anybody cares, BTW, I have a zfs-fuse branch on github that adds support
for pool v28. I haven't managed to make anything break on it for a few
months now, but any testing is welcome.

Gordan

[Nikolam]

Since year ago or so, BTRF is in production, as per Redhat, SuSE and I
think Oracle LInux.
That said, OpenZFS continues to advance ZFS with 'Feature flags' from many
companies, on illumos, Linux, OSX and FreeBSD.

Post by Gordan Bobic

Post by Budric Bundy
I started using btrfs on single drives for the main system - my laptop
and desktop PC. It's an easily supported /boot partition; and provides
snapshot features. I don't have many complaints and haven't lost my data
(so far). One minor complaint is I can't use it to store swap files.

I'm not sure why to even bother considering BTRFS, though. I have ZoL on
my 64-bit x86 hardware, including /boot and rootfs. On my ARM hardware I
use zfs-fuse for the rootfs. The only minor annoyance with the latter is
that file caps don't appear to be supported so updating a package with
files that require it fails, but it isn't that big a deal.

Post by Budric Bundy
For RAID5 (RAIDZ) volumes I still use ZFS. It just works and I haven't
had a big reason to switch. I don't feel that confident in BTRFS RAID5.
The wiki says it's stable but may have inconsistent parity on power
failure: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 , and the RAID
code seems to still be getting routine RAID5 fixes
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-For-Linux-4.3
. I don't know if ZFS suffers from same corner case issue.
Although I have run into an issue with zfs send/receive. I do backups by
taking a snapshot on the main server and doing incremental or full sends.
At one point my backup machine, which had Ubuntu OS same as main server,
died and I replaced it with Arch and AUR zfs-git and imported the pool (and
ran scrub). But the the zfs send/receive failed with stream checksum error
- for both incremental and full backups.

Very odd. I have never had such a problem, and I regularly do zfs
send/receive between different implementations (ZoL to zfs-fuse) and I have
never seen it fail to work.
If anybody cares, BTW, I have a zfs-fuse branch on github that adds
support for pool v28. I haven't managed to make anything break on it for a
few months now, but any testing is welcome.
Gordan
--
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-fuse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Gordan Bobic]

Just because more people are now confident that BTRFS won't outright eat
your data doesn't mean it is anywhere near being even in the same league as
ZFS.

Post by Nikolam
Since year ago or so, BTRF is in production, as per Redhat, SuSE and I
think Oracle LInux.
That said, OpenZFS continues to advance ZFS with 'Feature flags' from many
companies, on illumos, Linux, OSX and FreeBSD.

Post by Gordan Bobic

Post by Budric Bundy
I started using btrfs on single drives for the main system - my laptop
and desktop PC. It's an easily supported /boot partition; and provides
snapshot features. I don't have many complaints and haven't lost my data
(so far). One minor complaint is I can't use it to store swap files.

I'm not sure why to even bother considering BTRFS, though. I have ZoL on
my 64-bit x86 hardware, including /boot and rootfs. On my ARM hardware I
use zfs-fuse for the rootfs. The only minor annoyance with the latter is
that file caps don't appear to be supported so updating a package with
files that require it fails, but it isn't that big a deal.

Post by Budric Bundy
For RAID5 (RAIDZ) volumes I still use ZFS. It just works and I haven't
had a big reason to switch. I don't feel that confident in BTRFS RAID5.
The wiki says it's stable but may have inconsistent parity on power
failure: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 , and the RAID
code seems to still be getting routine RAID5 fixes
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-For-Linux-4.3
. I don't know if ZFS suffers from same corner case issue.
Although I have run into an issue with zfs send/receive. I do backups
by taking a snapshot on the main server and doing incremental or full sends.
At one point my backup machine, which had Ubuntu OS same as main server,
died and I replaced it with Arch and AUR zfs-git and imported the pool (and
ran scrub). But the the zfs send/receive failed with stream checksum error
- for both incremental and full backups.

Very odd. I have never had such a problem, and I regularly do zfs
send/receive between different implementations (ZoL to zfs-fuse) and I have
never seen it fail to work.
If anybody cares, BTW, I have a zfs-fuse branch on github that adds
support for pool v28. I haven't managed to make anything break on it for a
few months now, but any testing is welcome.
Gordan
--
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"zfs-fuse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-fuse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ryan How]

I've had inconsistent checksum issues on ZFS receive. I rebuilt my
server and then it was fine. Don't know what the underlying cause of it
was, but haven't seen it since.

The only real ZFS problems I've had have been performance (which was
self inflicted due to not understanding it well enough) and memory,
which seems to behave much better in the later versions on linux.

Post by Gordan Bobic
Just because more people are now confident that BTRFS won't outright
eat your data doesn't mean it is anywhere near being even in the same
league as ZFS.
Since year ago or so, BTRF is in production, as per Redhat, SuSE
and I think Oracle LInux.
That said, OpenZFS continues to advance ZFS with 'Feature flags'
from many companies, on illumos, Linux, OSX and FreeBSD.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Gordan Bobic
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Budric Bundy
I started using btrfs on single drives for the main system
- my laptop and desktop PC. It's an easily supported
/boot partition; and provides snapshot features. I don't
have many complaints and haven't lost my data (so far).
One minor complaint is I can't use it to store swap files.
I'm not sure why to even bother considering BTRFS, though. I
have ZoL on my 64-bit x86 hardware, including /boot and
rootfs. On my ARM hardware I use zfs-fuse for the rootfs. The
only minor annoyance with the latter is that file caps don't
appear to be supported so updating a package with files that
require it fails, but it isn't that big a deal.
For RAID5 (RAIDZ) volumes I still use ZFS. It just works
and I haven't had a big reason to switch. I don't feel
that confident in BTRFS RAID5. The wiki says it's stable
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 , and the
RAID code seems to still be getting routine RAID5 fixes
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-For-Linux-4.3
. I don't know if ZFS suffers from same corner case issue.
Although I have run into an issue with zfs send/receive.
I do backups by taking a snapshot on the main server and
doing incremental or full sends.
At one point my backup machine, which had Ubuntu OS same
as main server, died and I replaced it with Arch and AUR
zfs-git and imported the pool (and ran scrub). But the
the zfs send/receive failed with stream checksum error -
for both incremental and full backups.
Very odd. I have never had such a problem, and I regularly do
zfs send/receive between different implementations (ZoL to
zfs-fuse) and I have never seen it fail to work.
If anybody cares, BTW, I have a zfs-fuse branch on github that
adds support for pool v28. I haven't managed to make anything
break on it for a few months now, but any testing is welcome.
Gordan
--
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "zfs-fuse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "zfs-fuse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-fuse" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Christopher Chan]

Post by FnordMan
There's one big difference: Btrfs is getting better with time. ZFS is
sorta stagnant at the moment.
As soon as it's got RAID-5 support I was planning on converting my arrays
over from ZFS as it looks like ZFS is sorta dead thanks to Oracle.

What do you mean as soon as ZFS got raid-5 support? ZFS had something
better than RAID-5 from the very beginning. raidz. That's raid-5 without
the write-hole issue. You want raid-6? raidz2.

/me running a 9 disk raidz2 array with a tenth disk sitting there ready as
a hot spare.

[Durval Menezes]

HI Christopher,

Obviously "it" in the OP's sentence ("As soon as it's got RAID-5 [...]")
means BTRFS, not ZFS.

Relax and watch the blinking lights ;-)

Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
There's one big difference: Btrfs is getting better with time. ZFS is
sorta stagnant at the moment.
As soon as it's got RAID-5 support I was planning on converting my arrays
over from ZFS as it looks like ZFS is sorta dead thanks to Oracle.

What do you mean as soon as ZFS got raid-5 support? ZFS had something
better than RAID-5 from the very beginning. raidz. That's raid-5 without
the write-hole issue. You want raid-6? raidz2.
/me running a 9 disk raidz2 array with a tenth disk sitting there ready as
a hot spare.
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Christopher Chan]

Argh, somehow I read "from" as "to"

ZFS is still being worked on no? Surely someone from Garrett D'Amore's or
Alasdairr's camps is working on ZFS?

Christopher

Post by Durval Menezes
HI Christopher,
Obviously "it" in the OP's sentence ("As soon as it's got RAID-5 [...]")
means BTRFS, not ZFS.
Relax and watch the blinking lights ;-)
Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
There's one big difference: Btrfs is getting better with time. ZFS is
sorta stagnant at the moment.
As soon as it's got RAID-5 support I was planning on converting my
arrays over from ZFS as it looks like ZFS is sorta dead thanks to Oracle.

What do you mean as soon as ZFS got raid-5 support? ZFS had something
better than RAID-5 from the very beginning. raidz. That's raid-5 without
the write-hole issue. You want raid-6? raidz2.
/me running a 9 disk raidz2 array with a tenth disk sitting there ready
as a hot spare.
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Durval Menezes]

Hi Christopher,

As recently announced here, development on zfs-fuse has basically stopped,
but development of zfsonlinux continues at a steady pace.

Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Christopher Chan
Argh, somehow I read "from" as "to"
ZFS is still being worked on no? Surely someone from Garrett D'Amore's or

Alasdairr's camps is working on ZFS?

Post by Christopher Chan
Christopher

Post by Durval Menezes
HI Christopher,
Obviously "it" in the OP's sentence ("As soon as it's got RAID-5 [...]")

means BTRFS, not ZFS.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes
Relax and watch the blinking lights ;-)
Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
There's one big difference: Btrfs is getting better with time. ZFS is

sorta stagnant at the moment.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
As soon as it's got RAID-5 support I was planning on converting my

arrays over from ZFS as it looks like ZFS is sorta dead thanks to Oracle.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
What do you mean as soon as ZFS got raid-5 support? ZFS had something

better than RAID-5 from the very beginning. raidz. That's raid-5 without
the write-hole issue. You want raid-6? raidz2.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
/me running a 9 disk raidz2 array with a tenth disk sitting there ready

as a hot spare.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Emmanuel Anne]

Yeah but to be more precise, oracle closed the main dev site for zfs (more
precisely, it went closed source), there is another one which opened to try
to replace it, but it's probably not the same (even if I didn't even try to
test their work, I must say).
I think at the time oracle said they would continue to release the patches
but with a delay like 3 months, it was 1 year ago or so, and I never heard
about these patches again since then !
They clearly want to slow down or to kill any open source effort around zfs.

Post by Durval Menezes
Hi Christopher,
As recently announced here, development on zfs-fuse has basically stopped,
but development of zfsonlinux continues at a steady pace.
Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Christopher Chan
Argh, somehow I read "from" as "to"
ZFS is still being worked on no? Surely someone from Garrett D'Amore's

or Alasdairr's camps is working on ZFS?

Post by Christopher Chan
Christopher

Post by Durval Menezes
HI Christopher,
Obviously "it" in the OP's sentence ("As soon as it's got RAID-5

[...]") means BTRFS, not ZFS.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes
Relax and watch the blinking lights ;-)
Cheers,
--
Durval.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Christopher Chan <

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
There's one big difference: Btrfs is getting better with time. ZFS is

sorta stagnant at the moment.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
As soon as it's got RAID-5 support I was planning on converting my

arrays over from ZFS as it looks like ZFS is sorta dead thanks to Oracle.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
What do you mean as soon as ZFS got raid-5 support? ZFS had something

better than RAID-5 from the very beginning. raidz. That's raid-5 without
the write-hole issue. You want raid-6? raidz2.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
/me running a 9 disk raidz2 array with a tenth disk sitting there

ready as a hot spare.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Durval Menezes]

Hi Emmanuel,

Post by Emmanuel Anne
Yeah but to be more precise, oracle closed the main dev site for zfs (more
precisely, it went closed source), there is another one which opened to try
to replace it, but it's probably not the same (even if I didn't even try to
test their work, I must say).
I think at the time oracle said they would continue to release the patches
but with a delay like 3 months, it was 1 year ago or so, and I never heard
about these patches again since then !
They clearly want to slow down or to kill any open source effort around zfs.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but that's exactly the beauty
of an open-source project: even if the creators goes kaput and someone
else much less "open-minded" (pun intended) gets control of the
project, it's well-nigh impossible to close it up again: worse comes
to worst, the community will simply fork the last open version and
continue developing it.

Can't Oracle see that this kind of attitude is not only ineffective
but also guaranteed to damage their reputation with the open-source
community?

Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Durval Menezes
Hi Christopher,
As recently announced here, development on zfs-fuse has basically stopped,
but development of zfsonlinux continues at a steady pace.
Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Christopher Chan
Argh, somehow I read "from" as "to"
ZFS is still being worked on no? Surely someone from Garrett D'Amore's
or Alasdairr's camps is working on ZFS?
Christopher
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Durval Menezes

Post by Durval Menezes
HI Christopher,
Obviously "it" in the OP's sentence ("As soon as it's got RAID-5
[...]") means BTRFS, not ZFS.
Relax and watch the blinking lights ;-)
Cheers,
--
Durval.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Christopher Chan

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
There's one big difference: Btrfs is getting better with time. ZFS is
sorta stagnant at the moment.
As soon as it's got RAID-5 support I was planning on converting my
arrays over from ZFS as it looks like ZFS is sorta dead thanks to Oracle.

What do you mean as soon as ZFS got raid-5 support? ZFS had something
better than RAID-5 from the very beginning. raidz. That's raid-5 without the
write-hole issue. You want raid-6? raidz2.
/me running a 9 disk raidz2 array with a tenth disk sitting there
ready as a hot spare.
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Christopher Chan]

Oh, I'm using illumos with openindiana so all i know is that they
implemented dedup and maybe some other stuff.

I guess there is no dedup in zfs-fuse?

Post by Emmanuel Anne
Yeah but to be more precise, oracle closed the main dev site for zfs (more
precisely, it went closed source), there is another one which opened to try
to replace it, but it's probably not the same (even if I didn't even try to
test their work, I must say).
I think at the time oracle said they would continue to release the patches
but with a delay like 3 months, it was 1 year ago or so, and I never heard
about these patches again since then !
They clearly want to slow down or to kill any open source effort around zfs.

Post by Durval Menezes
Hi Christopher,
As recently announced here, development on zfs-fuse has basically
stopped, but development of zfsonlinux continues at a steady pace.
Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Christopher Chan
Argh, somehow I read "from" as "to"
ZFS is still being worked on no? Surely someone from Garrett D'Amore's

or Alasdairr's camps is working on ZFS?

Post by Christopher Chan
Christopher
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Durval Menezes <

Post by Durval Menezes
HI Christopher,
Obviously "it" in the OP's sentence ("As soon as it's got RAID-5

[...]") means BTRFS, not ZFS.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes
Relax and watch the blinking lights ;-)
Cheers,
--
Durval.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Christopher Chan <

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
There's one big difference: Btrfs is getting better with time. ZFS

is sorta stagnant at the moment.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
As soon as it's got RAID-5 support I was planning on converting my

arrays over from ZFS as it looks like ZFS is sorta dead thanks to Oracle.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
What do you mean as soon as ZFS got raid-5 support? ZFS had something

better than RAID-5 from the very beginning. raidz. That's raid-5 without
the write-hole issue. You want raid-6? raidz2.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
/me running a 9 disk raidz2 array with a tenth disk sitting there

ready as a hot spare.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Emmanuel Anne]

Post by Christopher Chan
Oh, I'm using illumos with openindiana so all i know is that they
implemented dedup and maybe some other stuff.
I guess there is no dedup in zfs-fuse?

Been on another planet lately ? dedup has been here for years now ! ;-)
(and actually that's the last reason I still have a zfs-fuse pool today !).

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Emmanuel Anne
Yeah but to be more precise, oracle closed the main dev site for zfs
(more precisely, it went closed source), there is another one which opened
to try to replace it, but it's probably not the same (even if I didn't even
try to test their work, I must say).
I think at the time oracle said they would continue to release the
patches but with a delay like 3 months, it was 1 year ago or so, and I
never heard about these patches again since then !
They clearly want to slow down or to kill any open source effort around zfs.

Post by Durval Menezes
Hi Christopher,
As recently announced here, development on zfs-fuse has basically
stopped, but development of zfsonlinux continues at a steady pace.
Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Christopher Chan
Argh, somehow I read "from" as "to"
ZFS is still being worked on no? Surely someone from Garrett D'Amore's

or Alasdairr's camps is working on ZFS?

Post by Christopher Chan
Christopher
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Durval Menezes <

Post by Durval Menezes
HI Christopher,
Obviously "it" in the OP's sentence ("As soon as it's got RAID-5

[...]") means BTRFS, not ZFS.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes
Relax and watch the blinking lights ;-)
Cheers,
--
Durval.
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Christopher Chan <

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
There's one big difference: Btrfs is getting better with time. ZFS

is sorta stagnant at the moment.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by FnordMan
As soon as it's got RAID-5 support I was planning on converting my

arrays over from ZFS as it looks like ZFS is sorta dead thanks to Oracle.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
What do you mean as soon as ZFS got raid-5 support? ZFS had

something better than RAID-5 from the very beginning. raidz. That's raid-5
without the write-hole issue. You want raid-6? raidz2.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
/me running a 9 disk raidz2 array with a tenth disk sitting there

ready as a hot spare.

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Durval Menezes

Post by Christopher Chan
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Christopher Chan]

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Christopher Chan
Oh, I'm using illumos with openindiana so all i know is that they
implemented dedup and maybe some other stuff.
I guess there is no dedup in zfs-fuse?

Been on another planet lately ? dedup has been here for years now ! ;-)
(and actually that's the last reason I still have a zfs-fuse pool today !).

You could say so :-p

I only checked this email account lately and saw zee zfs vs btrfs thread.

So thanks for educating this alien on the current status of zfs-fuse. I'll
stick with openindiana thanks.

Oracle being what it is...somehow I don't think it will be a good idea to
depend on an Oracle project. Look at what they have done with mysql,
opensolaris, openoffice and zfs. Once they have you hooked...I dunno.

[Emmanuel Anne]

It's not bad for everyone, it allowed libreoffice to be created, and it
seems healthier than openoffice ever was ! (especially it gets a lot of
patches from the community, when openoffice got almost only patches from
sun).
For mysql I don't know, didn't follow that very closely, it still works for
now anyway.
But you forgot java, which has been a huge mess lately ! ;-)
For zfs, well for now it seems maintained so I guess it's ok... !

So things are not so bad !

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Christopher Chan
Oh, I'm using illumos with openindiana so all i know is that they
implemented dedup and maybe some other stuff.
I guess there is no dedup in zfs-fuse?

Been on another planet lately ? dedup has been here for years now ! ;-)
(and actually that's the last reason I still have a zfs-fuse pool today !).

You could say so :-p
I only checked this email account lately and saw zee zfs vs btrfs thread.
So thanks for educating this alien on the current status of zfs-fuse. I'll
stick with openindiana thanks.
Oracle being what it is...somehow I don't think it will be a good idea to
depend on an Oracle project. Look at what they have done with mysql,
opensolaris, openoffice and zfs. Once they have you hooked...I dunno.
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Durval Menezes]

Hi emmanuel, Christopher and others,

Regarding Oracle's position on ZFS (and other technologies inherited from
Sun), here's a nice article:
http://www.serverwatch.com/server-trends/oracle-pushing-forward-on-linux-and-solaris.html

Regarding ZFS specifically, here's what Wim Coekearts, a "Senior VP" at
Oracle, has declared:
"According to Coekaerts, porting ZFS to Linux involves a non-optimal
approach that is not native. As such, there is likely not a need to attempt
to bring ZFS to Linux since Btrfs is now around to fit the bill. "

Well, as long as they don't try to interfere and stop others like the
ZFSOnLinux folks from doing so, I for one am happy enough with Oracle's
decision to get out of the way in regards to porting ZFS to Linux.

Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Emmanuel Anne
It's not bad for everyone, it allowed libreoffice to be created, and it
seems healthier than openoffice ever was ! (especially it gets a lot of
patches from the community, when openoffice got almost only patches from
sun).
For mysql I don't know, didn't follow that very closely, it still works
for now anyway.
But you forgot java, which has been a huge mess lately ! ;-)
For zfs, well for now it seems maintained so I guess it's ok... !
So things are not so bad !

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Christopher Chan
Oh, I'm using illumos with openindiana so all i know is that they
implemented dedup and maybe some other stuff.
I guess there is no dedup in zfs-fuse?

Been on another planet lately ? dedup has been here for years now ! ;-)
(and actually that's the last reason I still have a zfs-fuse pool today !).

You could say so :-p
I only checked this email account lately and saw zee zfs vs btrfs thread.
So thanks for educating this alien on the current status of zfs-fuse.
I'll stick with openindiana thanks.
Oracle being what it is...somehow I don't think it will be a good idea to
depend on an Oracle project. Look at what they have done with mysql,
opensolaris, openoffice and zfs. Once they have you hooked...I dunno.
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Emmanuel Anne]

Maybe they don't even know ZoL for now ! ;-)

Post by Durval Menezes
Hi emmanuel, Christopher and others,
Regarding Oracle's position on ZFS (and other technologies inherited
http://www.serverwatch.com/server-trends/oracle-pushing-forward-on-linux-and-solaris.html
Regarding ZFS specifically, here's what Wim Coekearts, a "Senior VP" at
"According to Coekaerts, porting ZFS to Linux involves a non-optimal
approach that is not native. As such, there is likely not a need to attempt
to bring ZFS to Linux since Btrfs is now around to fit the bill. "
Well, as long as they don't try to interfere and stop others like the
ZFSOnLinux folks from doing so, I for one am happy enough with Oracle's
decision to get out of the way in regards to porting ZFS to Linux.
Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Emmanuel Anne
It's not bad for everyone, it allowed libreoffice to be created, and it
seems healthier than openoffice ever was ! (especially it gets a lot of
patches from the community, when openoffice got almost only patches from
sun).
For mysql I don't know, didn't follow that very closely, it still works
for now anyway.
But you forgot java, which has been a huge mess lately ! ;-)
For zfs, well for now it seems maintained so I guess it's ok... !
So things are not so bad !

Post by Christopher Chan

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Christopher Chan
Oh, I'm using illumos with openindiana so all i know is that they
implemented dedup and maybe some other stuff.
I guess there is no dedup in zfs-fuse?

Been on another planet lately ? dedup has been here for years now ! ;-)
(and actually that's the last reason I still have a zfs-fuse pool today !).

You could say so :-p
I only checked this email account lately and saw zee zfs vs btrfs thread.
So thanks for educating this alien on the current status of zfs-fuse.
I'll stick with openindiana thanks.
Oracle being what it is...somehow I don't think it will be a good idea
to depend on an Oracle project. Look at what they have done with mysql,
opensolaris, openoffice and zfs. Once they have you hooked...I dunno.
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Durval Menezes]

Hello Emmanuel,

Post by Emmanuel Anne
Maybe they don't even know ZoL for now ! ;-)

Who knows? But if that's indeed the case, maybe the old proverb applies and
*their* ignorance is in fact *our* bliss.... :-)

Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Durval Menezes
Hi emmanuel, Christopher and others,
Regarding Oracle's position on ZFS (and other technologies inherited
http://www.serverwatch.com/server-trends/oracle-pushing-forward-on-linux-and-solaris.html
Regarding ZFS specifically, here's what Wim Coekearts, a "Senior VP" at
"According to Coekaerts, porting ZFS to Linux involves a
non-optimal approach that is not native. As such, there is likely not a
need to attempt to bring ZFS to Linux since Btrfs is now around to fit the
bill. "
Well, as long as they don't try to interfere and stop others like the
ZFSOnLinux folks from doing so, I for one am happy enough with Oracle's
decision to get out of the way in regards to porting ZFS to Linux.
Cheers,
--
Durval.

Post by Emmanuel Anne
It's not bad for everyone, it allowed libreoffice to be created, and it
seems healthier than openoffice ever was ! (especially it gets a lot of
patches from the community, when openoffice got almost only patches from
sun).
For mysql I don't know, didn't follow that very closely, it still works
for now anyway.
But you forgot java, which has been a huge mess lately ! ;-)
For zfs, well for now it seems maintained so I guess it's ok... !
So things are not so bad !

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Emmanuel Anne <

Post by Emmanuel Anne

Post by Christopher Chan
Oh, I'm using illumos with openindiana so all i know is that they
implemented dedup and maybe some other stuff.
I guess there is no dedup in zfs-fuse?

Been on another planet lately ? dedup has been here for years now !
;-) (and actually that's the last reason I still have a zfs-fuse pool today
!).

You could say so :-p
I only checked this email account lately and saw zee zfs vs btrfs thread.
So thanks for educating this alien on the current status of zfs-fuse.
I'll stick with openindiana thanks.
Oracle being what it is...somehow I don't think it will be a good idea
to depend on an Oracle project. Look at what they have done with mysql,
opensolaris, openoffice and zfs. Once they have you hooked...I dunno.
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

--
http://rainemu.swishparty.co.uk/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=zfs;a=summary
--
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/

[Richard.Elling]

ZFS development outside of Oracle is very much alive! Many of the
original ZFS developers are now at Delphix and regularly contribute
code back to the community. Furthermore, next month in San Francisco
(at the same time as Oracle Open World :-) the illumos Foundation is
hosting a ZFS Day celebration and tech conference. Everyone is invited.
See www.zfsday.com for more info.

-- richard