Giles Orr via talk wrote on 2024-11-21 15:01:
I just (finally) looked up the features of Btrfs, and it sounds fantastic.
Indeed.
Possibly ZFS-adjacent but without the nightmarish license problems?
There are no nightmarish license problems with ZFS. There's an issue where the license isn't GPLv2 compatible, but they're quite similar in spirit. As a user, it has no impact on me and works great. Most dev work for ZFS is now done on Linux as I understand it - no longer a second-class citizen on our favourite platform.
Am I missing something? It's in the kernel, but if it was that good, lots of distros would be defaulting to it ... and they're not.
Yeah, in fact, RedHat has removed it as of RHEL 8:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/8/htm...
A couple have tried, but it hasn't taken off. Can someone fill me in with the details I'm missing?
RAID5 and RAID6 are not recommended for production use, same with hierarchical per-subvolume quotas. Something about "write holes" per Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs When ZFS has virtually all the features (except re-sizing?) and is proven rock solid, why use BTRFS for something so critical as data storage? There have just been too many reports of data loss with BTRFS for me to completely trust it. Note: I'd love to see BTRFS become fully mature and implemented everywhere. My 2¢...