21–30 of 45 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is ZFS in general vs btrfs? ZFS is basically killed by Oracle right?
ZFS on Linux is where the majority of ZFS innovation is these days. Btrfs should be permanently deleted except for a sole copy in a museum somewhere as an example of a historical mistake negatively affecting millions of people.
Whats the current status of the situation between the ZFS-on-Linux project and Linux 5.1+?
How is ZFS in general vs btrfs? ZFS is basically killed by Oracle right?
BTRFS works well. I've used it for a NAS since 2012. It started with two mirrored 2 TB WD RED drives. Since then it's gone through an expansion to 6 drives in RAID 10 and two drive failures and replacements. Pretty decent performance and never a serious problem.
I've also used it on two laptops with SSD. It had some weird edge cases there using Docker with a lot of snapshots and running out of space for metadata. Unlike some people, I found it pretty straight-forward to recover by adding more space using either a USB drive or reusing my swap partition.
BTRFS snapshots are easy to do and great for backups and Docker image layers.
I felt the need to write this because your comment got three or four anti-BTRFS responses, and BTRFS has always been good to me.
> The first of these is Linux now supports persistent memory as RAM. Sure, non-volatile memory (NVM) isn't as fast as good old RAM, but on newer systems it gives you the option of expanding your memory. That sounds like swap. What's the difference?
Swap has to get paged into real RAM when there is a page fault (presumably evicting something else). I'm guessing that this is actually mapping the NVM directly into the process, so individual loads and stores write directly to the device instead of actual RAM.
From a functional point of view, it's still really just expanding your memory with a persistent storage device.
> I'm guessing that this is actually mapping the NVM directly into the process, so individual loads and stores write directly to the device instead of actual RAM.
If this were the only difference, then it would be just swap without its main optimization and for no noticeable benefit. I doubt this is all there is to it.
> The first of these is Linux now supports persistent memory as RAM. Sure, non-volatile memory (NVM) isn't as fast as good old RAM, but on newer systems it gives you the option of expanding your memory. That sounds like swap. What's the difference?
I think that this article explains it somewhat: https://lwn.net/Articles/777212/ Basically there's Intel Optane DIMM which costs less than DRAM and offers good enough performance, so you can use Optane with DRAM as a cache and those patches provide proper Linux support for that scheme.
These chips are extraordinary, when the prices finally go down to a reasonable level it will be another revolution in both persistent (speed) and volatile (size) memory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ZFS on Linux is where the majority of ZFS innovation is these days. Btrfs should be permanently deleted except for a sole copy in a museum somewhere as an example of a historical mistake negatively affecting millions of people.
Why is everyone shitting on btrfs in this thread?
Might be unfair, but I've learned my lesson there. I decided to follow the spectactle from a large distance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ZFS on Linux is where the majority of ZFS innovation is these days. Btrfs should be permanently deleted except for a sole copy in a museum somewhere as an example of a historical mistake negatively affecting millions of people.
Why is everyone shitting on btrfs in this thread?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is ZFS in general vs btrfs? ZFS is basically killed by Oracle right?
btrfs is a dumpster truck on fire and everyone serious about their data has switched to ZoL or is holding out in hopes that bcachefs won't be a similar clusterfsck (which shouldn't be too hard to do).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is ZFS in general vs btrfs? ZFS is basically killed by Oracle right?
No, OpenZFS is alive and thriving and we use it in production on many Centos systems. btrfs is a awful. We used it for a brief time on a production system with vanilla mirrored drives. Absolutely horrible. I will never use btrfs for anything ever again. I've been running unix systems for 30 years; even the darkest days of UFS was not that bad.
> The first of these is Linux now supports persistent memory as RAM. Sure, non-volatile memory (NVM) isn't as fast as good old RAM, but on newer systems it gives you the option of expanding your memory. That sounds like swap. What's the difference?
I think that this article explains it somewhat: https://lwn.net/Articles/777212/ Basically there's Intel Optane DIMM which costs less than DRAM and offers good enough performance, so you can use Optane with DRAM as a cache and those patches provide proper Linux support for that scheme.
I wonder if this new feature would be used with swapon/swapoff or if it would need a different interface.