On 8/15/18 2:25 AM, Stefan K wrote: > Did you think that "only" the RAID5/6 problem is the reason why btrfs is not > so common? what is with the performance? and some (important) featrures (not > futures ;) ) are missing to catch up ZFS. > > best regards > Stefan > (sorry for my bad english) >
Your English is fine. Not perfect (no one ever is), but I know plenty of native speakers who speak it worse than you. In my opinion btrfs has a bad rap partially because of the RAID5/6 situation, but also because for a long time it was marked as experimental, and there are some situations where data loss has occured (I'm guessing because of RAID5/6). But as long as you avoid RAID5/6 and stick to RAID1/10, you should be fine. Ignoring Raid5/6 and similar, I don't know what features btrfs is lacking that make ZFS more attractive. Btrfs does have *nice* features that ZFS currently lacks, like adding and removing disks to the array on-the-fly and intelligent data balancing while the array is mounted. Btrfs's killer feature, imo, is its Copy-On-Write features, which you can read about on the Arch Wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Btrfs#Copy-on-Write_.28CoW.29 Btrfs also corrects read errors on-the-fly, something ZFS doesn't do, but only if you are using a RAID with some level of redundancy.
