User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account



Posted Dec 13, 2013 10:21 UTC (Fri) by iq-0 (subscriber, #36655)
In reply to: ZFS by grahame
Parent article: The Btrfs filesystem: An introduction

It isn't true that data checksums are too expensive for btrfs, but using them does cost you some performance. And there are people that will tolerate almost *no* performance degradation (ofter for good reasons).

Data checksumming is a good feature but there are enough cases where people might not want to bother with it but where they're still interested in e.g. snapshotting support, transparent compression, deduplication or incremental send/receive.

The reason why btrfs isn't being picked up as much as zfs: Maturity. In the beginning zfs had much the same issues and uptime was rather slow. But it has aged pretty well and is now a pretty much proven filesystem. Btrfs still has some rough edges which make it a less than ideal filesystem for the layman, but it does have the features and they really work. When more people are using it, so will the tooling improve and will the filesystem be considered the default choice for most common uses.

(Log in to post comments)

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds