On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Andrew McGlashan <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/10/2014 5:41 PM, Peter Ross wrote: > > Overall I hear a lot of "btrfs is having this or that issues" which I > > never followed up properly. But it makes me wary. > > I don't know if I could ever trust BTRFS ... I want to, but I see too > many issues, far too often and file system problems are the last ones I > want due to a buggy implementation or failed feature adjustments that > just plain break things...
Every filesystem has problems in the early days. Only a small minority of BTRFS problems caused data loss. I've had a few serious problems (including ones that required backup/format/restore) and none of them lost any data AFAIK. > > I am using ZFS on FreeBSD for at least 3 years in production now (and > > upgrade the kernel regularly when needed) without any issues. > > > > Besides of early problems with nearly full ZFS and memory which were > > known. > > > > On both fronts there seems to be improvement. E.g. I have 92% full ZFS > > volumes which are still performing - there was a 80% "warning" in the > > past, and I run ZFS on 3GB and 4GB RAM boxes and do not see issues. > > How much storage? > > RAM was always a problem with ZFS, it seems to be a problem of the past > now though and ZFS seems so much better. My impression is that the only way ZFS can be said to no longer have a RAM problem is that RAM is cheap enough that no ZFS server will have less than 8G and everyone knows to turn of dedup. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
