Hm storage as RAM. Sounds like what IBM AS/400 was doing like 30 years ago for mini-frame machines.
A lot of the current server trends are basically reinventing wheels that were already spinning on mainframes multiple decades ago.
Linux 5.1 Arrives
41–45 of 45 posts
Re: Linux 5.1 Arrives
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is ZFS in general vs btrfs? ZFS is basically killed by Oracle right?
ZFS is OK I suppose, but it isn't native. So you have to jump through hoops to use it, just like Nvidia binary graphics drivers. 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 lap…
I agree, BTRFS has always been good to me as well and I use it day to day, however out of all the vague negativity in the comments below, this has real merit:
> ... raid5,6 had serious issues a while back - the write hole problem still exists for btrfs.
it does indeed. BTRFS should not be used on a RAID: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56
Re: Linux 5.1 Arrives
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
ZFS is OK I suppose, but it isn't native. So you have to jump through hoops to use it, just like Nvidia binary graphics drivers. 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 lap…
I agree, BTRFS has always been good to me as well and I use it day to day, however out of all the vague negativity in the comments below, this has real merit: > ... raid5,6 had serious issues a while back - the write hole problem still exists for btrfs. it does indeed. BTRFS should not be used on a RAID: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56
It shouldn't be used for RAID5 or 6. RAID0, 1 and 10 are fine.
Re: Linux 5.1 Arrives
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you elaborate a bit on what was awful about it?
Sure. Our small ~500GB volume (on an OpenSuse system) became essentially read-only with ~50GB of free space on it. The error code was no free space. We clearly didn't have the "toolkit" needed to deal with such an issue. The box was a secured system, so we couldn't add an additional device easily (non-keyboard USB devices were disabled in the kernel, for example). Also, the read speed off the volume became terribly s…
If you fill a ZFS volume too far you will start encountering a lot of difficulties just as you do with btrfs. This is an edge case that you really should see coming if you've worked with either on real machines.
Re: Linux 5.1 Arrives
#45It also has the Spectre/Meltdown mitigations, which happen to significantly decrease performance.