On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 07:06:24 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> btrfs isn't horrible, but it basically hasn't been optimized at all. >> The developers are mainly focused on getting it to not destroy your >> data, with mixed success. An obvious example of this is that if you >> read a file from a pair of mirrors, the filesystem decides which drive >> in the pair to use based on whether the PID doing the read is even or >> odd. >> >> Fundamentally I haven't seen any arguments as to why btrfs should be >> any worse than zfs. It just hasn't been implemented completely. But, >> if you want a filesystem today and not in 10 years you need to take >> that into account. > > I switched from ZFS to btrfs a few years ago when it appeared that ZFS > wasn't really going anywhere while btrfs was under active development. It > looks like I backed the wrong horse and should investigate switching back. >
Well, they're both FOSS, and honestly I feel like btrfs has more potential, but zfs is much more usable today. Btrfs has features which make it a lot more flexible in smaller installs (like being able to remove disks, and treating snapshots as full citizens). However, zfs generally can get the job done and is far less likely to eat your data in the process. I was also a btrfs hold-out for a long time, and I look forward to using it again some day, but it hasn't matured like I originally hoped. -- Rich
