[nix23]

>ZFS directly on my Linux desktop

Use BTRFS trust me it's stable now...well the commands are terrible compared to ZFS. All my Server are FreeBSD but on the Laptop and on one Workstation i have openSUSE Tumbleweed since like 2 years and it works great.

[raegis]

I've used btrfs for years with no problems ever. But, I see weekly reports on the btrfs reddit forum of the type "I was doing btrfs RAIDxyz, and I can't mount read/write" etc., so there do exist people who have issues with it today. If you do RAID on steroids, you might do some research before trying btrfs.

[gpanders]

> well the commands are terrible compared to ZFS

Really? I don’t think so, I find btrfs usage extremely straightforward and easy to grok. ZFS on the other hand has all that confusing lingo about vdevs, etc...

I get that this is subjective but I disagree.

[rleigh]

The Brtfs commands are very poor compared with what ZFS offers. The ZFS commands are organised around the end user: the system administrator. The Brtfs commands are not.

As an example, you're running low on space and need to find out which datasets (subvolumes) are using the most space. How do you do that? With ZFS it's a single command which runs in a few milliseconds. With Btrfs...

[nix23]

Hey everyone has a different taste, but vdevs, datasets, and pool are for me much more logical than lv's and lg's (pun was NOT intended).

[zeropoint46]

but thats not really btrfs, thats LVM. I use BTRFS directly on physical disks and dont use pvs, vgs or lvs.

[nix23]

well then call it volumes and vdev's?...i love zfs's layering.

[neolog]

> the commands are terrible

what does that mean?

[chungy]

The "btrfs" tool has a lot of leaky abstractions, confusing intended usage, and gotchas all over the place. If you aren't a btrfs developer, it is difficult to know what exactly you want to do and how to accomplish it.

ZFS on the other hand has just two commands for common administration tasks: zpool and zfs. zpool controls pool-level operations, mainly ones that deal with the storage layer; zfs controls the logical file systems and volumes that are contained within a pool. The zpool and zfs commands have been meticulously crafted to not expose much of the underlying software architecture and focus only on what administrators want, and all of it is clearly documented.

There are actually a few other commands that come with ZFS if you really want or need to deal with low-level and difficult details, commands like zdb, zinject, zstreamdump. You almost never need any of them.

[vetinari]

For zfs specific features, there are 'zfs' and 'zpool' commands (well, binaries, and the first parameter is a command). For btrfs, there is 'btrfs'.

So I guess that the GP considers /usr/sbin/{zfs,zpool} more intuitive than /usr/sbin/btrfs.

[nix23]

Well zpool is for the pool which consist of filesystems/datasets or zfs's. So i have a clear distinction of the whole pool (pools or logical groups) or filesystems/datasets (zfs or logical volumes).

It has nothing todo with /usr/sbin/x

[nix23]

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Manpage/btrfs

>what does that mean?

Not functional but logical (for me)