--As of June 2, 2012 6:32:39 PM -0400, Simon is alleged to have said:
This thread confused me. Is the conclusion of this thread that ZFS is
slow and breaks beyond recovery? I keep seeing two sides to this coin. I
can't decide whether to use ZFS or hardware RAID. Why does EMC use
hardware RAID?
--As for the rest, it is mine.
It appears to be the conclusion of Wojciech Puchar that ZFS is slow, and
breaks beyond recovery. The rest of us don't appear to have issues.
I will agree that ZFS could use a good worst-case scenario 'fsck' like
tool. However, between at home and at work (where it's used on Solaris),
the only time I've ever been in a situation where it would be needed was
when I was playing with the disks in several low-level tools; the situation
was entirely self-inflicted, and would have caused major trouble for any
file system. (If I'd been storing data on it, I would have needed to go to
backups. Again, this would have been the case for any file system.)
ZFS can be a complicated beast: It's not the best choice for a single,
small, disk. It may take tuning to work to it's full potential, and it's
fairly resource-intensive. However, for large storage sets there is no
other file system out there at the moment that's as flexible, or as useful,
in my opinion.
Daniel T. Staal
---------------------------------------------------------------
This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
