> > >> Personally I'd go with zfs over btrf. > >> Interesting. I see that also with zfs, you can expose previous versions via samba.
>> You prefer zfs, because..? (The "more mature" argument, or other reasons as well..? perhaps specific to running on Qemu VM on ceph >> storage?) I would go for ZFS for that scenario but definitely I wouldn't try to use it on a VM. I would prefer a physical server running a linux distro and ZoL for ZFS or maybe FreeNAS + SAMBA to expose the shares on clients. You could also use a second server as a ZFS sync target for failover purposes.. Yannis On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:20 PM, lists <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lindsay, > > Thanks for your reply. > > On 17-7-2017 1:04, Lindsay Mathieson wrote: > >> The Samba server is a Qemu VM? >> > yes. > > The backing filesystem (Ceph) should be irrelevant to whatever filesystem >> you use in the VM. >> > Yes, I realise that. I know it's possible, and btrfs and xfs also seem to > perform (after some brief testing) similarly. But there is a lot of > discussion about "CoW penalty". > > And that's why I'm asking. > > For what it's worth: Our ceph has xfs OSDs. > > So, should I worry about this CoW penalty or not really? > > Personally I'd go with zfs over btrf. >> > Interesting. I see that also with zfs, you can expose previous versions > via samba. > > You prefer zfs, because..? (The "more mature" argument, or other reasons > as well..? perhaps specific to running on Qemu VM on ceph storage?) > > MJ > > _______________________________________________ > pve-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user > _______________________________________________ pve-user mailing list [email protected] https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
