Well, the original LV is reality; the snapshot LV is a view of the past. https://serverfault.com/a/41202

1 members found this post helpful.

It's had that reputation for a while. New reports from Facebook may change that, soon.

LWN.net has a paywalled(*) article, outlining how FB is using Btrfs. Specifically, their infrastructure and dev teams are fully on Btrfs. The snapshot capability eliminates the need for cloning a repository; just take a snapshot, then work within it. When you're done, just delete the snapshot. It's a lot faster than "clone, develop, test, delete work files."

Plus, Btrfs's built-in compression works really well on source code (and extends the life of low-end SD storage). And integrity checking flagged a buggy RAID controller's damage immediately.

Downside: "It isn't Btrfs if there isn't an ENOSPC issue." But this is rarely happening now.

(*)The article went up today; it will be free to read in a week.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks!

Thanks for the article. I will save the link and read it when it became free.

ZFS?

... blah blah blah, [I should have read the thread before posting]

Sorry, I would like to delete this post. You already mentioned ZFS. I don't fully get the relevance of Oracle when zfsonlinux is active and other BSD and illumos people are active, but you may know more than I do.

Well, since I did a dumb, trollish post, let me at least include something useful. Here's an analysis of the "licensing problem:"

https://www.softwarefreedom.org/reso...rnel-cddl.html

Not a problem for me. Maybe it is for you? The problem is GPL incompatibility which is only a problem for someone distributing. Unless you mean that you have to distribute the joined thing or that the distribution problems make installation of zfs a headache for you, I don't see the relevance of the license. On it's own, based on that article CDDL is a free, copyleft license. Of course, it's annoying for someone to add another copyleft license rather than use the GPL, but it's not like it's a proprietary license.

1 members found this post helpful.

I won't claim that everyone's been there, but I sure have.

Interesting. I didn't know what Linus's take on ZFS was before.

Natural that he'd not be super interested given the license incompatibility. But I'm not clear on what he means by the lack of maintenance. Is openzfs / zfsonlinux short on people?

I might still be inclined to run it instead of RAID+LVM, but I'm only a casual user and so far have only used it in NetBSD. It's so much more pleasant from a UI perspective (in terms of command and subcommand) than LVM or btrfs.