> FreeBSD plays it safe too. It's just that UFS, and other file systems on
> FreeBSD, understand write caches and flush at appropriate times.
Do you have something to cite w.r.t. UFS here? Because as far as I know,
that is not correct. FreeBSD shipped with write caching turned off by
default for
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:21:14PM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote:
> > Oliver Schinagl wrote:
> > > zo basically, what you are saying is that on FBSD there's no performane
> > > issue, whereas on solaris there (can be if write caches aren't enabled)
> >
> > Solaris plays it safe by default. You can,
> Nothing sucks more than your "redundant" disk array
> losing more disks than it can support and you lose all your data
> anyway. You'd be better off doing a giant non-parity stripe and dumping to
> tape on a regular basis. ;)
Anyone who isn't dumping to tape (or some other reliable and [b]off-s
> Oliver Schinagl wrote:
> > zo basically, what you are saying is that on FBSD there's no performane
> > issue, whereas on solaris there (can be if write caches aren't enabled)
>
> Solaris plays it safe by default. You can, of course, override that safety.
FreeBSD plays it safe too. It's just t
On 20-Jun-07, at 12:23 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Hello,
I'm quite interested in ZFS, like everybody else I
suppose, and am about
to install FBSD with ZFS.
On that note, i have a different first question to
start with. I
personally am a Linux fanboy, and would love to
see/use ZFS on linux
> Hello,
>
> I'm quite interested in ZFS, like everybody else I
> suppose, and am about
> to install FBSD with ZFS.
>
> On that note, i have a different first question to
> start with. I
> personally am a Linux fanboy, and would love to
> see/use ZFS on linux. I
> assume that I can use those ZFS
