I read an article stating Ubuntu 16 is going to ZFS.
What does Logan think about this?
Is ZFS an improvement over BFS?
Do you mean btrfs? ZFS is faster and more stable than btrfs.
yes and no. It depends what type of workload is being run. As far a straight throughput to disk Btrfs is faster and the reason why is ZFS has to compute the error correction on th fly while Btrfs computes the error correction after the event. I got my data from this pdf www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:822493/FULLTEXT01.pdf
btrfs is also more flexible and uses less resources (ie. RAM)
however the big issue is in this blog I read. Btrfs has a huge issue you can not do hot swapping in a raid that has more than 2 drives. So the only set you can use is a raid 0+1 unless you find patch the issue yourself.
blog.ronnyegner-consulting.de/2014/12/10/parity-based-redundancy-raid56triple-parity-and-beyond-on-btrfs-and-mdadm-dec-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-784446
Yes I meant BTFS. 'Not a good typist.
BTFS maybe faster. I thought it was interesting that Ubuntu has made the choice to go to ZFS.
Do you mean that it's going to support ZFS? because currently it doesn't use btrfs by default, it uses ext4.
Hold on, you're possibly confusing some things here. BTRFS of course has the ability to hot-swap and support more than two drives, depending on the redundancy scheme you use. The blog and subsequent comments are about using more than two parity disks (RAID6) in an array. Also the blog is from 2014, it does not cover very recent development. Since kernel 3.19 there is working raid5/6 support, although it is not considered production ready yet, if i recall correctly.
1 Like
The ZFS RAM requirement is a bit over-stated in my opinion, especially for home use where you don't often have the same files accessed over and over.
I was just going to say this. That blog is ancient.
Here is a good track of the current state of btrfs https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Changelog
I won't duplicate the article here.
But you can read it on the release notes on the Ubuntu home page.
It's apparently very useful for file error checking.
Wendell made a comment some ago about bit-rot.
So, I guess if file integrity is a very high priority, then ZFS might be a choice especially if you don't have hardware RAID.
A utility download is required to us ZFS in Ubuntu 16.
That's really all I know which is why I posted the question.
Im trying BTRFS now as aposed to an external PC running FreeNAS. I like the command line simplicity
My only change is I ditch raid 5 and run with mirrors. Hard drive space is so cheap. And BTRFS does not care about the drives. I added.
3TB
2TB
1.5TB
Drives in the pool are different size and so far BTRFS works fine. Going to add another 3TB to that pool shortly. Because why not/
1 Like
That's something I think is awesome about btrfs, you can have disks of different sizes and an odd number and still run whatever type of raid you like. It works by making sure each block has a mirror (or parity) on a different disk rather than having one disk mirror another. It also let's you add and remove disks without having to format.
ZFS is more stable and mature, and I imagine the performance is better but for my needs if I were to choose between the two I'd go with btrfs.
No you meant BTRFS also know as BetterFS or ButterFS for short, I prsonally have sevreal RAID arrays and workloads I would like to try on something other than ext4, So ZFS is my next venture, since I've heard good things so far...Ubuntu support is going to be crucial to it's adoption.
ZFS has already been widely adopted in the enterprise.
1 Like