On 03/14/2011 12:12 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 03/14/2011 11:51 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sid Boyce
wrote: Going back quite a while there was an article comparing ZFS and BTRFS. When mature BTRFS seems a better way to go. It was saiway back that Linus was using BTRFS as his root filesystem. I have ha it as a backup of my systems for a long time. On the Beagleboard (ARM) I shall be using it tomorrow as my root filesystem on Ubuntu ARM - as usual, while I was out today, the postman left a note to say he couldn't deliver my new 32Gig micro SD card I need to try it out. http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/
Did you look at: "http://lwn.net/Articles/393144/"? That article, especially the title, is just sensationalism. Edward's observations missed that btrfs does internal metadata duplication, so his numbers are off. He also points to a broken design as the root problem when, in fact, the issues he brought up were implementation issues. Edward, at the time, was also still actively working on reiser4 so I wouldn't discount the sour grapes effect[1]. I agree. It is sour grapes. It turns out that the two issues he mentioned, Fragmentation when using inline extents and Nearly empty nodes littering the file system are both implementation issues. The first is a feature that Chris thought the cost:benefit was too low to work on. The second was a bug in merging items. BTW, the wasted space issue is specious. There are workarounds to avoid the inline extent issue if you care about it. Yes, reiser[34] are exceptional at reducing wasted space with packed tails and packing items in well, but file systems are allowed to have different priorities. Not following reiser[34]'s priorities doesn't make it a design flaw. Other file systems waste loads of space in different ways. A lot of those issues have already been addressed or will be this year. Including a fsck tool and defrag. -- Cheers! Roman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org