On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:58:52PM +0200, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 24/05/2012 00:05, Mark Linimon wrote:
> > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:58:48PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
> >> > While it might be a shame to see FFS go by the wayside are there any
> >> > big reasons why you would rather stick with FFS instead of moving
> >> > to ZFS with all the benefits that brings?
>
> > - ZFS eats bytes for breakfast. It is completely inappropriate
> > for anything with less than 4GB RAM.
> >
> > - ZFS performs poorly under disk-nearly-full conditions.
>
> - ZFS is not optimal for situations where there are a lot of small,
> randomly dispersed IOs around the disk space. Like in any sort of
> RDBMS.
This is very true for reads, not for writes because it is a COW
filesystem so writes are usually sequencial disk-wise.
--
Jeremie Le Hen
Men are born free and equal. Later on, they're on their own.
Jean Yanne
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
