Thomas King wrote: >> All the issues he complains about actually are solved by XFS, and XFS actually > does better in >> exactly these environments than either zfs on Solaris or JFS2 on AIX. >> >> > > I asked the author that question and he states XFS is actually a pretty good > answer to most of those issues but believes it still falls short where "the > metadata areas are not aligned with RAID strips and allocation units are FAR too > small but better than ext." Another detail he brought out was sending data and > metadata to different devices in those environments and referenced RT XFS. > Otherwise having them on the same device increases the possibility of corruption > and/or a longer filesystem check/repair. Will btrfs offer something like this in > the future? > > Do y'all foresee btrfs being used in exabtye installations? > Does/Will btrfs have RAID awareness in that it will align "the > superblock and metadata to the RAID stripe"? > What is the largest block allocation available? > Will btrfs be T10 DIF/block protect aware? > I remember reading that CRFS relies on btrfs, but will btrfs support NFS, > specifically version 4.1? You don't mention what I believe is the *key* issue (and I don't think the author did either, but I skimmed his article): data integrity. I'm not talking about blatant failures or known need for an fsck, but rather silent corruption. Where I work, we are considering multi-petabyte scenarios, and with the specs of current drives, we are talking hundreds of silent errors per read of the volume of data - unacceptable. With large filesystems (and he's talking 100 PB, etc.), this is the #1 issue for me. -Joe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
