ZFS Downside of ZFS (over BTRFS and in general)

This a simple scripting problem. See,
sh: 
zfs snap -r $(dirname $(df -h /usr/local | awk 'NR == 2 {print $1}'))@old
Only three of my machines use the same pool name. The above works on those with or without the same pool name when pasting into the many xterms on my desktop or when the command is run remotely via ssh.
 
I was watching a random RHEL video and it had a tutorial on Stratis; the tutorial created a pool direct to a device (no partition table), and auto-formats the new partition with XFS.

I haven't heard of Stratis before and it looks similar to ZFS, but I'm curious about the difference with Stratis formatting the new pool entry with XFS (standard Linux FS), vs ZFS seemingly being the filesystem and pool management all-in-one? Could it loosely be seen like ZFS and Stratis being similar, but ZFS being a lighter option without needing a separate filesystem format?

I also wonder how Btrfs fits into that? The video and RHEL page mention Stratis and it only supporting XFS; does something else similar exist that RHEL/enterprise uses that supports Btrfs, or is it more for specialized use (Meta) and desktop/workstation?
 
Espionage724 said:
I haven't heard of Stratis before and it looks similar to ZFS, but I'm curious about the difference with Stratis formatting the new pool entry with XFS (standard Linux FS), vs ZFS seemingly being the filesystem and pool management all-in-one? Could it loosely be seen like ZFS and Stratis being similar, but ZFS being a lighter option without needing a separate filesystem format?
Click to expand...
According my (limited) experience, I prefer an integrated solution like ZFS respect a composition of different storage layers components, like in Stratis.

On paper, the Stratis approach seem more elegant and composable, but in practice it is risky going outside the "happy-path" supported by RedHat. In practice, you can use Stratis only in the (few) ways directly supported by RedHat. ZFS has so much possible configurations, that I doubt that Stratis can be more flexible.

Moreover, ZFS code can take care in an integrated way of every aspect of storage management: e.g. caching, checksum, different types of disks, etc.. On the contrary, every component of Stratis is "blind" about the low level details managed by other components, and so some optimizations and integrity checks are more difficult (or impossible) to be implemented in Stratis.
 
OpenFreeNet said:
Moreover, ZFS code can take care in an integrated way of every aspect of storage management: e.g. caching, checksum, different types of disks, etc.. On the contrary, every component of Stratis is "blind" about the low level details managed by other components, and so some optimizations and integrity checks are more difficult (or impossible) to be implemented in Stratis.
Click to expand...
This last paragraph sounds a lot like the old divide between RAID cards and the filesystems that sat on top of them, i.e. one layer not knowing a single thing about the other, and all the limitations that arose from that.

Such layer isolation is certainly a very good thing in a myriad of scenarios, e.g. networks, but for something like storage technologies, I can't see why we'd want to backtrack on all the major problems ZFS solved via its integrated approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top