|K.S. Bhaskar on 2 Feb 2015 08:38:18 -0800|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: [PLUG] zfs vs btrfs vs …|
> - For this application, are there any considerations other than mountingOn Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 12:16:02PM -0500, K.S. Bhaskar wrote:
> I am trying to create a virtual machine to be used to teach electronic
> health records for a class by giving each student a configured application
> s/he can then use, e.g., to record treatments. The application includes a
> database of several GB. I would like to give each student an individual
> database to work with, but would prefer not to have to give each student a
> separate copy of the database, when 99% of the database will be the same
> for all of them.
> My current plan is to create the database on filesystem such as btrfs or
> zfs with a master copy of the database. To add a student, a script would
> take a snapshot of the filesystem (or preferably just a sub-tree at
> directory in the file system) and mount the snapshot with copy-on-write in
> a different place for each student. For example, if I had a /home/master,
> one might snapshot the master subdirectory and make it available at
> /home/adam and /home/eve. Now Adam and Eve can each have a complete
> database, with one master copy, but each time one of them updates the
> database, the blocks in the filesystem on which the modified parts of the
> database live would be copied. The additional space used is for
> modifications by each student.
> I am trying to decide between zfs and btrfs. One advantage of zfs over
> btrfs appears to be that the snapshots can be auto-mounted without editing
> /etc/fstab - with btrfs, adding 30 students to the class would seem to
> require 30 entries in /etc/fstab. I have zero experience in zfs, and
> barely any experience with btrfs, so this will be a learning experience for
> A couple of questions, please:
> in choosing between zfs and btrfs?
> - Should I explore some other alternative, along the lines of
> unionfs-fuse? A filesystem in userspace hs the advantage of not requiring
> root to create a copy, but at least unionfs-fuse does copy-on-write at the
> file level, not the block level, so each student would end up with a
> complete copy of the database. So, unionfs-fuse itself is out.
> Thank you very much, in advance, for advice, opinions, and pointers.
Other people have commented on zfs and btrfs, so let me start the
discussion on "...". Given your description, I don't see the need to
try to optimize the disk space being used. Wouldn't another option
just be to give everyone a complete copy of the database? At several
GB per student, even a fairly big class could easily fit on an
inexpensive 1-2 TB HD. Why not just do that instead of using
filesystems that are still poorly supported on Linux?
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug