On 01/31/2014 01:44 PM, Rich wrote: > From what I've seen, everything runs great except for the issue of > cleanly halting the machine. I'll fix that later if/when I have the > time/interest. It's been fun playing around with btrfs, but in some > respects ZFS seems better to me.
Thanks for posting your info. Yes ZFS is a lot more proven than BtrFS, and we know it's stable from quite a few years of production use now. I ran a file server on it for nearly 7 years without issues, at least that were caused by ZFS. That was on Solaris 10. I'd even be comfortable running ZFS on a Linux server in production, but you'd have to compile the modules manually or via dkms, since it will never be able to be shipped by a distro. Although if you ship zfs, it's not welded into the kernel, and it's the end user loading the module and tainting the kernel, so maybe the license issue isn't a bit deal. I loved how ZFS did snapshots and integrated NFS configuration (and now samba too I hear). And recursive operations. Right now I just want to see what BtrFS can do. I'm not sure how easy it is to get ZFS running as a root file system on Linux. BtrFS has some interesting features that ZFS lacks, so it's always a tradeoff. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
