On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:41 AM, James <wirel...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > I think btrfs has tremendous potential. I tried ZFS a few times, > but the installs are not part of gentoo, so they got borked > uEFI, grubs to uuids, etc etc also were in the mix. That was almost > a year ago. For what ever reason the clustering folks I have > read and communicated with are using ext4, xfs and btrfs. Prolly > mostly because those are mostly used in their (systemd) inspired) > distros....?
I do think that btrfs in the long-term is more likely to be mainstream on linux, but I wouldn't be surprised if getting zfs working on Gentoo is much easier now. Richard Yao is both a Gentoo dev and significant zfs on linux contributor, so I suspect he is doing much of the latter on the former. > > Yep. the license issue with ZFS is a real killer for me. Besides, > as an old state-machine, C hack, anything with B-tree is fabulous. > Prejudices? Yep, but here, I'm sticking with my gut. Multi port > ram can do mavelous things with Btree data structures. The > rest will become available/stable. Simply, I just trust btrfs, in > my gut. I don't know enough about zfs to compare them, but the design of btrfs has a certain amount of beauty/symmetry/etc to it IMHO. I only have studied it enough to be dangerous and give some intro talks to my LUG, but just about everything is stored in b-trees, the design allows both fixed and non-fixed length nodes within the trees, and just about everything about the filesystem is dynamic other than the superblocks, which do little more than ID the filesystem and point to the current tree roots. The important stuff is all replicated and versioned. I wouldn't be surprised if it shared many of these design features with other modern filesystems, and I do not profess to be an expert on modern filesystem design, so I won't make any claims about btrfs being better/worse than other filesystems in this regard. However, I would say that anybody interested in data structures would do well to study it. -- Rich
