On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 07:06:24 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > btrfs isn't horrible, but it basically hasn't been optimized at all. > The developers are mainly focused on getting it to not destroy your > data, with mixed success. An obvious example of this is that if you > read a file from a pair of mirrors, the filesystem decides which drive > in the pair to use based on whether the PID doing the read is even or > odd. > > Fundamentally I haven't seen any arguments as to why btrfs should be > any worse than zfs. It just hasn't been implemented completely. But, > if you want a filesystem today and not in 10 years you need to take > that into account.
I switched from ZFS to btrfs a few years ago when it appeared that ZFS wasn't really going anywhere while btrfs was under active development. It looks like I backed the wrong horse and should investigate switching back. -- Neil Bothwick C&W music backward: get yer dog, wife, job, truck, kids, and sobriety back.
pgpIkfcfhzYDe.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
