Richard, why are you moving to ZFS when you already have BTRFS. Certainly ZFS is more mature.
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Dan Ritter <d...@randomstring.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:39:51PM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote: > > Please share your experiences with both BTRFS and ZFS. > > > I use btrfs in RAID 1 and RAID 10 mode on spinning disks, RAID 1 on ssd, > zfs in RAID 10 on spinning disks with independent ZIL and L2ARC (read > and write caches) on ssd, and in RAID 1 on ssd. > > btrfs is a little faster, but the only time this makes a > significant difference is in weekly scrubbing, where btrfs does > it at about twice the rate of zfs. > > btrfs has a nocow option that can be set on directories or > individual files which can dramatically improve performance for > databases and VM images. But... that also turns off > checksumming, which is one of the big reasons to use zfs or > btrfs in the first place. It also turns off compression. > > zfs does not have a nocow option at all. If you are running a > production database, zfs is not your friend for the database > storage. > > zfs has better tools for snapshotting. > > zfs is generally more flexible about turning options on and > off... except for deduplication. Do not experiment with > deduplication. zfs has many, many options. > > Both support rsync-like incremental send and receive functions, > nearly instantaneous snapshotting. and compression with a couple > of algorithms. > > -dsr- > -- -- Jerry Feldman <gaf.li...@gmail.com> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: B7F14F2F Key fingerprint: D937 A424 4836 E052 2E1B 8DC6 24D7 000F B7F1 4F2F _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss