btrfs has been in preview for a while. What is the status of bringing it to full production? Interest centers with using it to reduce memory needs vs zfs.
None, as with any filesystem on the planet. The operating system will cache as much as possible. The difference is how this memory is allocated and that ZFS uses - depending on its root in Solaris (solaris portability layer) - different methods so that the memory cannot be released as fast as it would be in other filesystems with use the kernels default buffer cache logic.What is the ram reduction difference using btrfs vs zfs in your estimation?
None, as with any filesystem on the planet. The operating system will cache as much as possible. The difference is how this memory is allocated and that ZFS uses - depending on its root in Solaris (solaris portability layer) - different methods so that the memory cannot be released as fast as it would be in other filesystems with use the kernels default buffer cache logic.
The OOM situation is, sadly, yet of course does ZFS need RAM for manage itself (see next point).I do not think it is about "reduction" in terms of "more left over" - ZFS simply needs RAM.
That is true. I'm talking solely on the upper end of the problem, not on the lower end.I had low RAM configurations where ZFS would be outright unstable, but BTRFS be just fine.
Yes, that's one of the main points against L2ARC if you don't have enough ARC, it will in theory and in practice make your pool slower and if it helps will only be shown in your metrics. I didn't see any improvement in mine, so I dropped it and put in more RAM and more special devices.Even e.g. adding L2ARC increases the RAM requirement.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.