On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:21:26PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-09-16 12:45, Martin Tippmann wrote: > >2015-09-16 17:20 GMT+02:00 Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferro...@gmail.com>: > >[...] [...] > > From reading the list I understand that btrfs is still very much work > >in progress and performance is not a top priority at this stage but I > >don't see why it shouldn't perform at least equally good as ZFS/F2FS > >on the same workloads. Is looking at performance problems on the > >development roadmap? > Performance is on the roadmap, but the roadmap is notoriously > short-sighted when it comes to time-frame for completion of > something. You have to understand also that the focus in BTRFS has > also been more on data safety than performance, because that's the > intended niche, and the area most people look to ZFS for.
Wait... there's a roadmap? ;) Hugo. -- Hugo Mills | Our so-called leaders speak hugo@... carfax.org.uk | with words they try to jail ya http://carfax.org.uk/ | They subjugate the meek PGP: E2AB1DE4 | but it's the rhetoric of failure. The Police
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
