Discussion:
How ZFS is better than btrfs
(too old to reply)
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
2012-03-29 04:24:47 UTC
Permalink
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs

Enjoy :-)
--
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
http://rudd-o.com/
--
To post to this group, send email to zfs-fuse-/***@public.gmane.org
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
Richard Yao
2012-03-29 04:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs
Enjoy :-)
I have a much shorter comparison as a FAQ answer here:

https://github.com/gentoofan/zfs-overlay/wiki/FAQ

I think I will add a link to your write-up. :)
Manuel Amador
2012-03-29 05:01:02 UTC
Permalink
I have added your suggestions to the article I wrote.

Thanks
Post by Richard Yao
Post by Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than
-btrfs
Enjoy :-)
https://github.com/gentoofan/zfs-overlay/wiki/FAQ
I think I will add a link to your write-up. :)
--
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
http://rudd-o.com/
--
To post to this group, send email to zfs-fuse-/***@public.gmane.org
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
rohan puri
2012-03-29 06:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Manuel Amador
I have added your suggestions to the article I wrote.
Thanks
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than
Post by Richard Yao
Post by Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
-btrfs
Enjoy :-)
https://github.com/gentoofan/zfs-overlay/wiki/FAQ
I think I will add a link to your write-up. :)
--
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
http://rudd-o.com/
Cool!!! ZFS rocks

-Rohan
Fajar A. Nugraha
2012-03-29 06:13:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
Post by Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs
"
You can mount an entire tree of ZFS file systems in one operation.
You have to mount each individual subvolume separately with btrfs.
"

That is not true.

If you mount btrfs root tree (not sure if that's the right term). then
all subvolumes will be visible under that mount as well.

If you mount a subvolume that has a subvolume under it, the
sub-subvolume will be visible under that mount. For example:

$ sudo btrfs su li /
ID 371 top level 5 path subvol/lxc/precise
ID 372 top level 5 path subvol/lxc/precise/rootfs

If I mount subvolid=5, the root tree and all subvols will be visible.
If I mount subvolid=371, the content of subvolid 372 will be visible
under the directory "rootfs" under the mount point.

I'd change the statement to

"
You can mount a ZFS file systems without mounting its children. If you
mount a btrfs subvolume, you always see all children of that
subvolume.
"
--
Fajar
--
To post to this group, send email to zfs-fuse-/***@public.gmane.org
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
Emmanuel Anne
2012-03-29 07:00:27 UTC
Permalink
and the stability issue isn't really true neither, at least for linux where
zfs is just usable.
For example, btrfs works with preemptible kernels without problem, not the
case of zol.
Also there's no memory issue/number of threads in btrfs afaik (although I
never used it on a small system).
It doesn't have all the bells and whistles of zfs yet, but I'd say it's a
solid base.
Post by Fajar A. Nugraha
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs
"
You can mount an entire tree of ZFS file systems in one operation.
You have to mount each individual subvolume separately with btrfs.
"
That is not true.
If you mount btrfs root tree (not sure if that's the right term). then
all subvolumes will be visible under that mount as well.
If you mount a subvolume that has a subvolume under it, the
$ sudo btrfs su li /
ID 371 top level 5 path subvol/lxc/precise
ID 372 top level 5 path subvol/lxc/precise/rootfs
If I mount subvolid=5, the root tree and all subvols will be visible.
If I mount subvolid=371, the content of subvolid 372 will be visible
under the directory "rootfs" under the mount point.
I'd change the statement to
"
You can mount a ZFS file systems without mounting its children. If you
mount a btrfs subvolume, you always see all children of that
subvolume.
"
--
Fajar
--
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
--
To post to this group, send email to zfs-fuse-/***@public.gmane.org
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
Manuel Amador
2012-03-29 07:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for your feedback! I have fixed the article everywhere where I was
repeating this dumb statement of mine.
Post by Fajar A. Nugraha
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
Post by Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than
-btrfs
"
You can mount an entire tree of ZFS file systems in one operation.
You have to mount each individual subvolume separately with btrfs.
"
That is not true.
If you mount btrfs root tree (not sure if that's the right term). then
all subvolumes will be visible under that mount as well.
If you mount a subvolume that has a subvolume under it, the
$ sudo btrfs su li /
ID 371 top level 5 path subvol/lxc/precise
ID 372 top level 5 path subvol/lxc/precise/rootfs
If I mount subvolid=5, the root tree and all subvols will be visible.
If I mount subvolid=371, the content of subvolid 372 will be visible
under the directory "rootfs" under the mount point.
I'd change the statement to
"
You can mount a ZFS file systems without mounting its children. If you
mount a btrfs subvolume, you always see all children of that
subvolume.
"
--
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
http://rudd-o.com/
--
To post to this group, send email to zfs-fuse-/***@public.gmane.org
To visit our Web site, click on http://zfs-fuse.net/
Loading...