Re: Containers, Btrfs vs Btrfs + overlayfs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Thanks for mentioning the underlying storage.
> SSD makes FUA overhead smaller, so with SSD the metadata CoW is less
> obvious.

Typically there are 2 or 3 superblocks. SSD mount option causes
rotation of superblock updates. I wonder the effect this rotation
would have on HDD performance rather than FUA causing all supers being
updated.



> Latency wise, the AUFS/Overlayfs seems to be the proble
>
> BTW, why not just ZFS-on-Linux? As ZFS also supports snapshot, maybe it will
> has similar latency compared to btrfs.

Maybe. But the volume management it's not as flexible as Btrfs. No
shrink, no device removal, no migration to mixed block device sizes so
consolidation of backing devices in cloud is a bigger hassle if you
want to stay online during migrate. Not a big deal but they're useful
features.



-- 
Chris Murphy
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux