On 07/19/10 07:26, Andrej Podzimek wrote:
I run ArchLinux with Btrfs and OpenSolaris with ZFS. I haven't had a serious issue with any of them so far.
Moblin/Meego ships with btrfs by default. COW file system on a cell phone :-). Unsurprisingly for a read-mostly file system it seems pretty stable. There's an interesting discussion about btrfs on Meego at http://lwn.net/Articles/387196/
Undoubtedly, ZFS is currently much more mature and usable than Btrfs.
Agreed, but it's not just ZFS, though. It's the packaging system, beadm, stmf, the whole works. A simple yum update can be a terrifying experience and almost impossible to undo. And updating to a major new Linux release? Almost as bad as updating MSWindows. Open Solaris as an administerable system is simply years ahead of anything else.
However, Btrfs can evolve very quickly, considering the huge community around Linux. For example, EXT4 was first released in late 2006 and I first deployed it (with a stable on-disk format) in early 2009.
But the infrastructure to make use of a ZFS-like manager simply isn't there. As a Linux and Solaris developer and user of both, I'd take Solaris any day and so would everyone I know. But going back to the original topic, the tea leaves seem to be saying that Oracle is interested primarily in Solaris as a robust server OS and probably not so much for the desktop where there realistically isn't going to be much revenue. But it would be a bad gamble if they lose a lot of mind-share. Legal issues over ZFS make it even worse. I get calls for help converting MSWindows applications and servers to Linux. ZFS and all the other goodies make a compelling case for Solaris (and Sun/Oracle hardware) instead but the uncertainties make it a hard sell. Oracle are you listening? _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
