Plans for Logged/Journaled UFS

[Thomas Burgess]

each version of FreeBSD to have ZFS has gotten better.  7.0 was cool, but
buggy.  7.1 fixed some stuff, but required a lot of tuning 7.2 amd64 made it
possible to run without any tuning on some systems and now in 8.0 amd64 it's
quite smooth for me.

I think the benefits outweigh the issues.  ZFS recently saved me from some
serious data loss due to a failing raid controller.

end to end data integrity via checksums is great.


On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Attila Nagy <bra at fsn.hu> wrote:

> Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>> Which use cases can you name?
>>>>
>>> Reliable data storage. :(
>>>
>> Jeez, I wrote this months ago.
>>
>> Do you feel that improving UFS is a better way to go?
>>
> No, I think ZFS is the good way (although it has its problems as well). And
> I'm very grateful to the guys who worked on this.
> I've just summed my experiences, which tells me ZFS is still not ready for
> prime time. Where UFS keeps running for years, ZFS suddenly crashes, or
> worse, just freezes, in a way, which is hard to debug for the average user
> (a crashdump is easy, but when I can't even go to the debugger, that's
> hard).
> I hope that things will settle down and ZFS will be as much reliable in
> FreeBSD as UFS is now (or even better, I've had some bad crashes with UFS
> thanks to on-disk data corruption).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-fs at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>