Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
valentin.bud at gmail.com
Mon Dec 1 11:24:50 PST 2008
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Kirk Strauser <kirk at strauser.com> wrote:
> I have ZFS on my 7.1-PRERELEASE system, and while it does some spiffy things,
> in general I'm a bit underwhelmed.
> Adding new filesystems on a whim is really nice.
yes it is.
> It has a lot of really cool other features that I will probably never need.
then you don't need ZFS. usually you choose a technology because you need
it. if you don't need it then you don't use it. pure simple.
> I have nearly 3GB of wired RAM, but it doesn't seem to be all that fast.
> For example, starting an Amanda backup on a UFS2 filesystem would get through
> the "estimate" phase almost instantly on a system that had been up for several
> days because of cached filesystem data. On ZFS, it still limps along even if I
> just finished the last backup a few minutes earlier.
it's all about compromises. uses lots of ram *but* gives you the
ability to add new filesystems
on the run.
and after all it's all about choices.
> Other than saying "I'm using ZFS", I don't seem to have much to show for it.
> "Raidz and top-level vdevs cannot be removed from a pool."
> At this point, I'm almost ready to go back to good ol' UFS2, but I'd hate to
> give up that easy addition of new filesystems. I *could* have a single 700GB
> root FS but that just doesn't seem right. Are there any good, tested GEOM-
> based ways of getting that functionality, perhaps along the lines of using
> something like gvirstor and growfs as needed?
> - Kirk
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions