Re:Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
by nicoburns on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @06:45AM
(#25516633)
ZFS itself seems very stable and not to suffer from these issues though.
Re:Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
by jpeloquin on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @02:59PM
(#25521511)
Anecdotally, I've encountered issues with both ZFS and BTRFS at about the same rate. A public example of an apparent ZFS performance issue is https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/9375 Both are much more quirky than simpler filesystems like ext4. Data integrity verification from checksumming makes it worth it though.
The ZFS vs. BTRFS choice, I think, depends more on whether you need specific features like offline deduplication or L2ARC / SLOG cache devices. And which one you're more familiar with (can troubleshoot better).
Re:Linux 5.10 BTRFS performance regression
by Quekid5 on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @10:42AM
(#25518703)
ZFS is also extremely well designed at a system level... which is not the impression I get from BtrFS. (Disclaimer: I have not bothered looking at BtrFS for years because ZFS has handled everything I've thrown at it very admirably. Including complicated setups with RAID-Z, etc.)
Granted, there are some limitations to the design, but it doesn't affect my use cases, so whatever...
Mostly because it has lots of features and as a consequence, is pretty large and complex. Closer to ZFS than ext2.
Btrfs suffers from a initial bad rep, which is difficult to overcome.