From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]:48620 "EHLO mail-wi0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932582Ab3DCIrh (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Apr 2013 04:47:37 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hn17so3368148wib.4 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 01:47:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <515BECA0.8020302@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 09:47:28 +0100 From: Uncle Stoatwarbler MIME-Version: 1.0 To: zfs-discuss@zfsonlinux.org, Roman Mamedov , "BTRFS, Linux" Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Moving... References: <515A95C7.5090607@petaramesh.org> <20130402230421.016afe58@natsu> <515B120F.6000004@petaramesh.org> In-Reply-To: <515B120F.6000004@petaramesh.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/04/13 18:14, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote: > My netbook (now ZFS) boots to GDM in less than 30 seconds. My son's same > machine (except for the FS) takes 75 MORE seconds. my (5 year old) laptop with a relatively slow SSD in it boots to GDM (Mint LXDE) in about 5 seconds with ext4. A 9 year old laptop fitted with a very slow PATA SSD takes about 9 seconds to do the same. I'm not so sure that ZFS is a good fit for single drive machines ((Nor is ext4 for SSDs for that matter), but I'm happy to be corrected. What I do know from banging hard on both is that I'd far sooner trust ZFS in an enterprise environment than BTRFS (or XFS), because I'm not really that happy about the idea of having to periodically restore 500Tb+ of data from backups. Speed is a secondary issue, but ZFS is definitely faster at large scale. There's a lot of wheel reinvention going on and I feel there must be some way of merging the good parts of both sets of code, then moving on.