Keresés

Új hozzászólás Aktív témák

  • F34R

    nagyúr

    válasz janos666 #3453 üzenetére

    Normal XFS-es vagy EXT4-s raid-et nem probaltal meg, vagy esetleg mar a hagyomanyos megoldasok nem jottek be?
    Egyebkent nekem singe disken volt BTRFS es hiaba kapcsoltam ki cow-t nem sokkal lett gyorsabb, sima szekvencialis felhasznalasra is lassabb volt mint az XFS, torrentnel jobban is toredezett.

    Egyebkent lehet jo hir neked, de van egy masik fajlrendszer ami a BTRFS kis hibait probalja kikuszobolni.
    egyenlore eleg early statusban : [link]

    Azthiszem meg is valaszoltam magamnak a kerdest.

    " I lost terrabytes of data with btrfs on a backup server again and again and again.
    In the end I use ext4 as trustworthy frontend, and btrfs as a unreliable backup. Because ext4 can't beat btrfs when it comes to snapshot/delete. It takes a second to snapshot, and deletes of a snapshotted tree what takes ext4 26 hours is a few minutes on btrfs.
    Another point against btrfs is the insane amount of memory it uses.
    But in the end I hope btrfs will be as trustworthy as ext4 or even as much as reiserfs in the 2.4 kernel series, because btrfs has this insane amount of checking that I really want. Especially in a SOHO environment where my photographs are going on my personal cloud.
    Actually, btrfs should become cloud based... My current attempts will be using an fcoe exported physical volume from another server, together with a local disk. But what if btrfs was running locally *and* remotely, working together for raid 1 storage on non raid disk configurations. The current btrfs implementation should allow something like that with not too much work. I mean: currently raid one is implemented by taking 2 "lower level" individual btree storages and make sure they have the same higher level data in that storage."

    :DDD :DDD

    Probaltal amugy mas disztrot is?

Új hozzászólás Aktív témák