On 12 November 2015 00:14:15 CET, "Nuno Magalhães" <nunomagalh...@eu.ipp.pt>
wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Ralf
><ralf+gen...@ramses-pyramidenbau.de> wrote:
>> So I'm
>> thinking about to migrate to Btrfs.
>
>Have you considered ZFS?
>I currently have some disks with {fs}+LVM+RAID1 and others with a ZFS
>mirror (no extra disks for ARC or anything), both approaches seem
>manageable. To me btrfs still seems "not-ready-yet", but that's just
>me.
>
>Can't offer any real benchmarks, i'm just starting out, but the
>correct comparison seems to be btrfs vs ZFS, not btrfs vs fs+LVM+RAID.
>
>Cheers,
>Nuno
I think for small amount of disks (around 4) btrfs is a better option.
For larger amounts (think 10+) ZFS is a better option.
This is based on the design ideas and due to the lack of a robust raid5+
implementation in btrfs.
ZFS requires more memory to perform well, compared to other filesystems.
I believe btrfs doesn't have this requirement. I don't have any systems with
this yet, but am planning on implementing btrfs on desktops and seevers with
small amount of disks.
For the servers with higher disk-counts, I am planning on implementing ZFS.
--
Joost
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
