5 ms·
oh neat, ReFS isn't dead interested to see performance metrics when tech youtubers start messing around with it
by fire 3y ago
oh neat, ReFS isn't dead
interested to see performance metrics when tech youtubers start messing around with it
- fires10 3y agoOh, I used this and the performance and deduplication surprised me greatly in ReFS. I was using it as a place to store backups of my systems. The on disk vs the file size was so great that I had to rethink my offsite storage solutions. There was a recent article on here from a researcher at Microsoft on file size and deduplication.
- Avamander 3y agoDeduplication is awesome, it's really unfortunate how dangerous it is with things available on Linux. I've had ZFS corrupt itself twice and not after disabling it, on the same hardware. And btrfs died on me once - I'm not 100% sure it's exactly due to that, but there's a limit how much I'm willing to spend time copying terabytes.
- bravetraveler 3y agoWas the btrfs failure with RAID? Compared to LVM/dmraid with other filesystems on top... BTRFS is remarkably easy to fault. I can reliably break BTRFS RAID using the reset switch on my system. Others behave fine via journaling and whatever, same devices/kernels/RAID level
- fire 3y agoyou mind speaking more about the kind of size differences you're seeing? also, do you have a link to that article by chance?
- fires10 3y agohttps://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/fast11/tech/full_papers/Meyer.pdf https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/fast11/tech/full_papers... I had 66TB folder that appeared to be 21TB on disk. Granted there was significant duplicate data as this was backups of multiple systems.
- fire 3y agoholy crap
- pjmlp 3y agoBesides this use case, it has been supported on Windows Server configurations.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]