Just wanted to thank you for the insightful and informative post.
As someone who now has sole responsibility for a serious amount of storage,it's great to get a perspective from someone who is in the trenches with this stuff.
All the best,Mamading
On 17 August 2017 at 04:13, Dan Mons <email@example.com> wrote:
There are several posts around the Intertubes explaining what's going
on, direct from RHEL employees. BtrFS is not dead nor dying. In
RHEL moves slow, on purpose. It's up to RHEL devs to backport new
stuff to their old kernel, which is sometimes difficult.
BtrFS moves fast. Literally rebased on each new kernel that comes out
(and if you follow these things, the kernel is moving damned fast
RHEL have no BtrFS devs in house. RHEL has lots of XFS devs in house.
XFS is moving slow (it's old, yo). Thus, RHEL are looking at merging
XFS, device mapper, and a bit of Rust code to make something roughly
equivalent from a volume management point of view (but missing the
good stuff like block checksumming that matters more, but everyone
seems to forget, including Apple and their APFS).
Once BtrFS slows down and stabilises, RHEL will likely pick it up
again. Until then, use a faster moving distro if you want BtrFS.
We've all but dumped RHEL/CentOS in favour of UbuntuLTS with the HWE
kernels. It's a nice mix of stability but with features that aren't a
decade old. We're running BtrFS as our standard file system on
single-drive systems (including desktops) and small RAID10 NAS units,
and it works very well. Free snapshotting (including integrated into
APT for auto-snapshot during package installs/upgrades), compression,
and checksumming. BtrFS RAID5/6 is still broken, but folks are
working on fixing it.
For ZFS - no, you can't legally ship compiled/linked CDDL code in the
GPL Linux kernel. That's against the rules. Ubuntu do it, but
they're legally wrong. Oracle's lack of desire to chase them in the
courts doesn't make it right. DKMS-style "ship the code and a wrapper
to compile it in at the client side" is the right way to handle that
sort of "conflicting open source license" stuff.
ZFS vs BtrFS is a whole other discussion. They're quite different on
important items, and one doesn't necessarily trump the other in every
use case. ZFS, for all its awesomeness, has a few flaws that new
things like BtrFS and bcachefs are fixing via better design.
This email is confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient.
If you have received this email in error please notify the author and
delete it immediately. This email is not to be distributed without the
author's written consent. Unauthorised forwarding, printing, copying or use
is strictly prohibited and may be a breach of copyright. Any views
expressed in this email are those of the individual sender unless
specifically stated to be the views of Cutting Edge Post Pty Ltd (Cutting
Edge). Although this email has been sent in the belief that it is
virus-free, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is
virus free. No responsibility is accepted by Cutting Edge for any loss or
damage arising in any way from receipt or use of this email. This email may
contain legally privileged information and privilege is not waived if you
have received this email in error.
To unsubscribe from the list send a blank e-mail to mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe