On 04.03.2013 20:58, Greg Smith wrote:
> There
> is no such thing as a stable release of btrfs, and no timetable for when
> there will be one. I could do some benchmarks of that but I didn't think
> they were very relevant. Who cares how fast something might run when it
> may not work correctly? btrfs might as well be /dev/null to me right
> now--sure it's fast, but maybe the data won't be there at all.
This PostgreSQL patch hasn't seen any production use, either. In fact,
I'd consider btrfs to be more mature than this patch. Unless you think
that there will be some major changes to the worse in performance in
btrfs, it's perfectly valid and useful to compare the two.
A comparison with ZFS would be nice too. That's mature, and has checksums.
- Heikki
