On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:43:12 +0100, lee wrote: > >> The relevant advantage of btrfs is being able to make snapshots. Is > >> that worth all the (potential) trouble? Snapshots are worthless when > >> the file system destroys them with the rest of the data. > > > > You forgot the data checksumming. > > Not at all, I'm seeing it as an advantage, especially when you want to > store large amounts of data. Since I don't trust btrfs with that, I'm > using ZFS.
You already have snapshots with ZFS. If you're happy with it, keep using it. > > If you use hardware RAID then btrfs > > only sees a single disk. It can still warn you of corrupt data but it > > cannot fix it because it only has the one copy. > > or it corrupts the data itself ;) Well, any filesystem is capable of that, and anybody is capable of making vague comments about it. I switched from ZFS to btrfs a while ago. ZFS is more mature, but the licensing issues and the lack of recent source code mean it isn't really going anywhere whereas btrfs is in the kernel and under active development. If you're already using ZFS and happy with it, you are probably better off sticking with it for now. -- Neil Bothwick The trouble with life is that you are halfway through it before you realize it's a "do it yourself" thing.
pgp1cP0pl2aYa.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
