> SSD is still very expensive when compared to traditional hard disks.
When measured by GB/$, sure.
Many data centers, though, care more about (ops/sec) / ($ * power *
heat). SSDs look much more compelling by that metric.
- z
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-b
I also would like to comment that btrfs is ready for the future storage
- the solid state drive. Btrfs performs well on both HDD and SSD.
SSD is still very expensive when compared to traditional hard disks.
*If* btrfs supported compression, I would second your opinion that btrfs
is (will be, w
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:37:27AM -0500, Thomas King wrote:
>> > All the issues he complains about actually are solved by XFS, and XFS
>> actually
>> does better in
>> > exactly these environments than either zfs on Solaris or JFS2 on AIX.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I asked the author that question and he
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Thomas King
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> All the issues he complains about actually are solved by XFS, and XFS
>> actually
> does better in
>> exactly these environments than either zfs on Solaris or JFS2 on AIX.
>>
>>
>
> I asked the author that question and he s
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:37:27AM -0500, Thomas King wrote:
> > All the issues he complains about actually are solved by XFS, and XFS
> > actually
> does better in
> > exactly these environments than either zfs on Solaris or JFS2 on AIX.
> >
> >
>
> I asked the author that question and he states
Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> We're very concerned about data integrity. With btrfs everything is
> checksummed at the logical level. This allows you to detect data
> corruption, repair bad blocks using redundant, good copies, perform
> data scrubbing, etc.
That's the main reason I am interesting
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:37:27AM -0500, Thomas King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>> I asked the author that question and he states XFS is actually a pretty good
>> answer to most of those issues but believ
> "Joe" == Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joe> You don't mention what I believe is the *key* issue (and I don't
Joe> think the author did either, but I skimmed his article): data
Joe> integrity. I'm not talking about blatant failures or known need
Joe> for an fsck, but rather silent
Hi.
On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:37:27AM -0500, Thomas King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I asked the author that question and he states XFS is actually a pretty good
> answer to most of those issues but believes it still falls short where "the
> metadata areas are not aligned with RAID strips and al
Thomas King wrote:
>> All the issues he complains about actually are solved by XFS, and XFS
>> actually
> does better in
>> exactly these environments than either zfs on Solaris or JFS2 on AIX.
>>
>>
>
> I asked the author that question and he states XFS is actually a pretty good
> answer to most
> All the issues he complains about actually are solved by XFS, and XFS actually
does better in
> exactly these environments than either zfs on Solaris or JFS2 on AIX.
>
>
I asked the author that question and he states XFS is actually a pretty good
answer to most of those issues but believes it st
Folks,
I am writing an article for Linux.com to answer Henry Newman's article at
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/sans/features/article.php/3749926
concerning Linux and massive filesystems. Is there someone here that can field
some questions about BTRFS?
Thanks!
Tom King
--
To unsubscribe fr
12 matches
Mail list logo
