mergerfs/mkdocs/docs/project_comparisons.md

# Project Comparisons

## mhddfs

* [https://romanrm.net/mhddfs](https://romanrm.net/mhddfs)

mhddfs had not been updated in over a decade and has known stability
and security issues. mergerfs provides a super set of mhddfs' features
and offers better performance. In fact, as of 2020, the author of
mhddfs has [moved to using
mergerfs.](https://romanrm.net/mhddfs#update)

Below is an example of mhddfs and mergerfs setup to work similarly.

`mhddfs -o mlimit=4G,allow_other /mnt/drive1,/mnt/drive2 /mnt/pool`

`mergerfs -o minfreespace=4G,category.create=ff /mnt/drive1:/mnt/drive2 /mnt/pool`


## aufs

* [https://aufs.sourceforge.net](https://aufs.sourceforge.net)
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufs)

While aufs still is maintained it failed to be included in the
mainline kernel and is no longer available in most Linux distros
making it harder to get installed for the average user.

While aufs can often offer better peak performance due to being
primarily kernel based, mergerfs provides more configurability and is
generally easier to use. mergerfs however does not offer the overlay /
copy-on-write (CoW) features which aufs has.


## unionfs

* [https://unionfs.filesystems.org](https://unionfs.filesystems.org)

unionfs for Linux is a "stackable unification file system" which
functions like many other union filesystems. unionfs has not been
maintained and was last released for Linux v3.14 back in 2014.

Documentation is sparse so a comparison of features is not possible
but given the lack of maintenance and support for modern kernels there
is little reason to consider it as a solution.


## unionfs-fuse

* [https://github.com/rpodgorny/unionfs-fuse](https://github.com/rpodgorny/unionfs-fuse)

unionfs-fuse is more like unionfs, aufs, and overlayfs than mergerfs
in that it offers overlay / copy-on-write (CoW) features. If you're
just looking to create a union of filesystems and want flexibility in
file/directory placement then mergerfs offers that whereas
unionfs-fuse is more for overlaying read/write filesystems over
read-only ones.

Since unionfs-fuse, as the name suggests, is a FUSE based technology
it can be used without elevated privileges that kernel solutions such
as unionfs, aufs, and overlayfs require.


## overlayfs

* [https://docs.kernel.org/filesystems/overlayfs.html](https://docs.kernel.org/filesystems/overlayfs.html)

overlayfs is effectively the successor to unionfs, unionfs-fuse, and
aufs and is widely used by Linux container platforms such as Docker and
Podman. It was developed and is maintained by the same developer who
created FUSE.

If your use case is layering a writable filesystem on top of read-only
filesystems then you should look first to overlayfs. Its feature set
however is very different from mergerfs and solve different problems.


## RAID0, JBOD, SPAN, drive concatenation, striping

* [RAID0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_RAID_levels#RAID_0)
* [JBOD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-RAID_drive_architectures#JBOD)
* [SPAN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-RAID_drive_architectures#Concatenation_(SPAN,_BIG))
* [striping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_striping)

These are block device technologies which in some form aggregate
devices into what appears to be a singular device on which a
traditional filesystem can be used. The filesystem has no
understanding of the underlying block layout and should one of those
underlying devices fail or be removed the filesystem will be missing
that chunk which could contain critical information and the whole
filesystem may become unrecoverable. Even if the data from the
filesystem is recoverable it will take using specialized tooling to do
so.

In contrast, with mergerfs you can format devices as one normally
would or take existing filesystems and then combine them in a pool to
aggregate their storage. The failure of any one device will have no
impact on the other devices. The downside to mergerfs' technique is
the fact you don't actually have contiguous space as large as if you
used those other technologies. Meaning you can't create a file greater
than 1TB on a pool of 2 1TB filesystems.


## UnRAID

* [https://unraid.net](https://unraid.net)

UnRAID is a full OS and offers a (FUSE based?) filesystem which
provides a union of filesystems like mergerfs but with the addition of
live parity calculation and storage. Outside parity calculations
mergerfs offers more features and due to the lack of real-time parity
calculation can have higher peak performance. Some users also prefer
an open source solution.

For semi-static data mergerfs + [SnapRaid](http://www.snapraid.it)
provides a similar, but not real-time, solution.


## ZFS

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS)

mergerfs is very different from ZFS. mergerfs is intended to provide
flexible pooling of arbitrary filesystems (local or remote), of
arbitrary sizes, and arbitrary filesystems. Particularly in `write
once, read many` use cases such as bulk media storage. Where data
integrity and backup is managed in other ways. In those use cases ZFS
can introduce a number of costs and limitations as described
[here](http://louwrentius.com/the-hidden-cost-of-using-zfs-for-your-home-nas.html),
[here](https://markmcb.com/2020/01/07/five-years-of-btrfs/), and
[here](https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/solaris/ZFSWhyNoRealReshaping).


## StableBit's DrivePool

* [https://stablebit.com](https://stablebit.com)

DrivePool works only on Windows so not as common an alternative as
other Linux solutions. If you want to use Windows then DrivePool is a
good option. Functionally the two projects work a bit
differently. DrivePool always writes to the filesystem with the most
free space and later rebalances. mergerfs does not currently offer
rebalance but chooses a branch at file/directory create
time. DrivePool's rebalancing can be done differently in any directory
and has file pattern matching to further customize the
behavior. mergerfs, not having rebalancing does not have these
features, but similar features are planned for mergerfs v3. DrivePool
has builtin file duplication which mergerfs does not natively support
(but can be done via an external script.)

There are a lot of misc differences between the two projects but most
features in DrivePool can be replicated with external tools in
combination with mergerfs.

Additionally, DrivePool is a closed source commercial product vs
mergerfs a ISC licensed open source project.


## Plan9 binds

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs#Union_directories_and_namespaces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs#Union_directories_and_namespaces)

Plan9 has the native ability to bind multiple paths/filesystems
together to create a setup similar to simplified union
filesystem. Such bind mounts choose files in a "first found" in the
order they are listed similar to mergerfs' `ff` policy. Similar, when
creating a file it will be created on the first directory in the
union.

Plan 9 isn't a widely used OS so this comparison is mostly academic.