Oh, again, this debate always goes on and on :)
Guys, try ZFS yourselves and come back here :)
You obviously haven't seen ARC caching in action. You haven't played
with snapshots. You haven't seen what the online compression can do.
Etc., etc., etc.
There's lots to ZFS, which neither BTRFS will
Are you talking about ZFS in general or ZoL? The problems I've seen
with ZoL is the performance inconsistencies (review github for details),
redundant caching, and of course user quotas (workaround is zvols but
zvols seem to have their own issues in current ZoL releases). As for
redundant cac
On 11/13/2014 10:49 AM, Devon B. wrote:
> Are you talking about ZFS in general or ZoL? The problems I've seen
> with ZoL is the performance inconsistencies (review github for details),
> redundant caching, and of course user quotas (workaround is zvols but
> zvols seem to have their own issues in
On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 16:28 -0500, Devon B. wrote:
>Ploop requires ext4 as the host filesystem according to bug 2277:
> https://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2277
We do run ploop based CTs on NFS storage successfully. I wonder now if
that is a setup that is not officially supported.
A
Hello!
Nfsv3 is officially supported but nfsv4 is not yet supported.
On Thursday, November 13, 2014, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 16:28 -0500, Devon B. wrote:
> >Ploop requires ext4 as the host filesystem according to bug 2277:
> > https://bugzilla.openvz.org/show_bug.cgi?id
Quotes is a problem and pain for many containers, you are absolutely
right. But this issue can be solved if we can manage and create zfs
subvolumes from inside containers.
Ploop is a very good storage layout but it has big amount of issues
inherited from ext4.
But what about btrfs? From my point
Greetings,
- Original Message -
> There's lots to ZFS, which neither BTRFS will ever even remotely
> approach.
Not really. That isn't to say that btrfs is done or that all of its features,
especially those added much later in the development cycle, are stable. So, I
don't contend that
Greetings,
- Original Message -
> But what about btrfs? From my point its not stable even in rhel7. But
> for next 5-7 years we should use rhel7 openvz kernel which haven't
> stable btrfs. Thus btrfs is not suitable for production usage with
> containers now.
Just a few clarification poin
Scott Dowdle wrote:
1) ext4 works fine and unless you have more than 16TB of storage in a single
partition, it isn't really a problem. No ext4 doesn't have checksums but you
do need backups no matter what filesystem you run. Filesystems that offer
redundancy and checksums do not alleviate t
Well, innovation isn't about matching features that someone else has
just for the sake of having them too, is it? :)
What lot of people are missing about ZFS is that it is a self-contained
project trying to solve real storage problems. It's not trying to be a
filesystem. It is a complete storage s
Hello!
Pavel! Awesome!
Please add one killer feature about ZFS - compete support for SSD with
TRIM and not-killing-this-sector-by-thousands-writes :)
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Pavel Snajdr wrote:
> Well, innovation isn't about matching features that someone else has
> just for the sake
On 11/13/2014 12:52 PM, Pavel Odintsov wrote:
Hello!
Pavel! Awesome!
Please add one killer feature about ZFS - compete support for SSD with
TRIM and not-killing-this-sector-by-thousands-writes :)
Hmm, aren't all SSD drives have built-in wear leveling?
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Pav
On 11/13/2014 11:20 PM, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
>
> On 11/13/2014 12:52 PM, Pavel Odintsov wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> Pavel! Awesome!
>>
>> Please add one killer feature about ZFS - compete support for SSD with
>> TRIM and not-killing-this-sector-by-thousands-writes :)
Actually ZoL doesn't support TRIM,
13 matches
Mail list logo
