[Discuss] NAS: ZFS vs. BtrFS

[tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)]

Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
> If you're planning to do one as primary, and one as backup, I am
> biased toward ZFS...

Yes, the block-level replication feature to a 2nd server is an appealing
feature of ZFS. Even more compelling is the block-level snapshotting
that ZFS provides. (Is there any other solution outside of a NetApp file
or BtrFS compare in this area? Maybe with vast quantities of cheap
storage, the space inefficiency of snapshots is less of a concern.)


> ...ZFS on linux. Apparently ZFS on linux has been working well now, 
> for at least a couple of years.

We keep hearing rumors of that, but anyone actually using it?

How about BtrFS now? I thought I saw some distributions switching to it
as a primary FS.


> Also, if you happen to choose ZFS, then you should definitely use
> JBOD, and allow the software to do the raid for you. I mention this
> because of your comment about JBOD vs RAID - sounds like maybe you
> didn't already know?

I would *only* consider software RAID. So when I say RAID that's what I
mean. I lump ZFS's RAID-Z with other software RAID, and don't consider
it JBOD, as it is not using 100% of the storage for data.

Now whether the overhead of RAID-Z is low enough that it makes more
sense to use that over Ext4 on JBOD for a low-reliability backup pool is
another matter.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
The Perl Shop, Newton, MA, USA
"Predictable On-demand Perl Consulting."
http://www.theperlshop.com/