>That would be nice. Before developers worry about such exotic >features, I would rather that they attend to the gross performance >issues so that zfs performs at least as well as Windows NTFS or Linux >XFS in all common cases.
To each their own. A FS that calculates and writes parity onto disks will have difficulties being as fast as a FS that just dumps data. A FS that verifies read data parity will have difficulties being as fast as a FS that just returns whatever it reads. I can not see how this can happen. That's no reason not to aim for a low overhead, but one has to make choices here. Mine is data safety and ease of use, so I'd love the "elastic" zpool idea. Of course, others will have different needs. Enterprises will not care about ease so much as they have dedicated professionals to pamper their arrays. They can also address speed issues with more spindles. ZFS+RAIDZ provides data integrity no RAID level can match thanks its checksumming. That's worth a speed sacrifice in my book. Anything I missed? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
