Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Microsoft's ReFS File-System: Competitor To Btrfs?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garytr24 View Post
    I'm not buying it, it would take quite a while for MASS-adoption since you'd need distro buy-in. The users that are willing to bend over backwards now to use BTRFS would prefer to migrate to a new version of the FS later than risk data-loss now.
    I think they already had distro buy-in (Fedora?) until that distro came to its senses and realized just how immature btrfs is.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garytr24 View Post
    In fact I ran BTRFS for about a year until my hard drive started getting bad sectors, i copied it over byte-by-byte to a new one, and the FS could no longer work properly, back to ext4.
    If you think ext4 or any other filesystem that doesn't include error correction mechanisms will save you from bad sectors (= hardware failure), please dream on... :P

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JanC View Post
    If you think ext4 or any other filesystem that doesn't include error correction mechanisms will save you from bad sectors (= hardware failure), please dream on... :P
    It would have saved me from having to reformat the partition to make it usable again. Localized data-loss is to be expected obviously. Corrupt FS metadata is what I'm talking about, in my case it would hang my system if I tried to access the wrong file.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Linux users can really care less about a new Microsoft file-system
    Couldn't care less. Big difference.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    All the data checksum'ng in the world isn't going to save your data if your hard drive decides to take a shit on you.

    All the raid-like features in the world isn't going to protect your data from a 'rm -rf *'.

    If you think you can depend on your FS, any FS, to protect your data your wasting money, time and effort... because you are doing it wrong.

    Very wrong.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I feel "meh" about filesystem advancements in linux. Seems like things are just getting stagnant and btrfs is pretty much going nowhere.

    I'd love to use linux for my NAS build but I'm probably going to end up with Solaris or one of its derivatives.
    That sounds stupid and funny same time. btrfs is in very active development and there's nothing what suggest stagnation or "going nowhere". You can only dream about dozens file systems that are supported under Linux, but not in slowlaris. I feel "meh" when some fanboy writes linux not Linux.

    janc and johnc means the same. Funny.
    Last edited by kraftman; 01-17-2012 at 04:40 PM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,614

    Default

    Yeah... "very active development"... ETA... sometime in 2035.

    Even MS is embarrassing Linux in FS support.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    All the data checksum'ng in the world isn't going to save your data if your hard drive decides to take a shit on you.

    All the raid-like features in the world isn't going to protect your data from a 'rm -rf *'.

    If you think you can depend on your FS, any FS, to protect your data your wasting money, time and effort... because you are doing it wrong.

    Very wrong.
    ZFS with RAIDZ and snapshots can easily protect you from hard drive crashes and "rm -rf *" And with send-receive you have an easy and build-in backup tool.
    So yes, I think I can depend on ZFS to protect my data.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goderic View Post
    ZFS with RAIDZ and snapshots can easily protect you from hard drive crashes and "rm -rf *" And with send-receive you have an easy and build-in backup tool.
    So yes, I think I can depend on ZFS to protect my data.

    No, you can't. You are absolutely incorrect with that assessment.

    The ZFS features are useful for increasing availability and integrity of available data. These features are needed more and more as you deal with larger and larger data sets. In a year or two those features are going to be the bare minimum requirements for dealing with average sized company's data. Ext4 or XFS, in this respect, is not adequate. They are not a substitute for backups.

    If your playing around with your own data then that is your own risk. If you think you can get away with this attitude in a professional environment then you are a menace to your employer's data.

    With proper backups your data is safer with Fat32 file system then with ZFS and no proper backups.
    Last edited by drag; 01-17-2012 at 06:00 PM.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Yeah... "very active development"... ETA... sometime in 2035.

    Even MS is embarrassing Linux in FS support.
    With crappy fat, ntfs and now with some refs which lacks btrfs features? Stop kidding. You'll probably see btrfs deployment this year. At least Oracle confirmed it will use it in their enterprise distribution. 2035 is ETA when ms will stop suck.

    If windows server 8 will be released in 2013 btrfs has a year to mature.
    Last edited by kraftman; 01-17-2012 at 06:28 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •