On 04/27/16 17:58, Juan Alberto Cirez wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong but the sum total of the above seems to > suggest (at first glance) that BRTFS add several layers of complexity, > but for little real benefit (at least in the case use of btrfs at the > brick layer with a distributed filesystem on top)... This may come as a surprise, but the same can be said for every other (common) filesystem (+ device management stack) that can be used standalone. Jeff Darcy (of GlusterFS) just wrote a really nice blog post why current filesystems and their historically grown requirements (mostly as they relate to the POSIX interface standard) are in many ways just not a good fit for scale-out/redundant storage: http://pl.atyp.us/2016-05-updating-posix.html Quite a few of the capabilities & features which are useful or necessary in standalone operation (regardless of single- or multi- device setup) are *actively unhelpful* in a distributed context, which is why e.g. Ceph will soon do away with the on-disk filesystem for data, and manage metadata exclusively by itself. cheers, Holger -- 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
