SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Stephen Foskett has written a detailed post about why he considers ZFS the Best Filesystem (For Now...). He starts out:
ZFS should have been great, but I kind of hate it: ZFS seems to be trapped in the past, before it was sidelined it as the cool storage project of choice; it's inflexible; it lacks modern flash integration; and it's not directly supported by most operating systems. But I put all my valuable data on ZFS because it simply offers the best level of data protection in a small office/home office (SOHO) environment. Here's why.
It's been a long road to get to where it is and there have been many hinderances, including software patents and malicious licensing.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
ZFS Is the Best Filesystem (For Now…)
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 20 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You will always find something in the last place you look.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Monday July 17 2017, @05:43AM
What doused some of my enthusiasm for btrfs was its slow performance at some operations. In particular, I read that it was very slow at sync operations, which Firefox does rather often. The developers worked on that problem, and greatly improved sync, but it still isn't near sync on ext4.
I learned xfs can be very slow at deleting a large directory tree, such as the Linux kernel source code. Was taking 5 minutes to do that, while ext4 was nearly instantaneous. Turned out the default sizes of blocks in xfs was just about the worst setting possible for the particular SAS controller and drives in that server. To fix the problem, I copied everything to another server, and reformatted with xfs with settings better suited to the hardware, then copied everything back.
Used Reiser3 for a few years and the only trouble I had with it was that performance rapidly degraded when disk usage climbed above 92%. Seems it should have be okay up to 98% or 99%.
Mostly, I want the file system not to have hugely slow and laggy performance on a few of the fairly routine operations. For a file system to work great on everything except show extraordinarily bad performance on one thing such as sync, or rm -rf /bigtree, is disturbing. So, been sticking with the ext file systems.