Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?

[Wojciech Puchar]

>
>> UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have "lots of
>> filesystems". why don't just make one or one per disk?
>
> For all the usual reasons: faster fsck, ability to set attributes on each
> filesystem (noexec, noatime, ro), a runaway process writing to /tmp won't cause
> problems in /var, etc.

i don't have such problems, ordinary users have quotas... (one as there's 
one filesystem).

> A big local reason is that Amanda is much easier to configure when you're using
> a bunch of filesystems because it runs tar with --one-file-system set.  If /var
> is separate from / and I want to back them up separately, I just tell Amanda
> to dump / and /var.  If /var is part of / then I have to say "dump / except
> for /var (and /tmp and /usr and ...)".

what i problem to do this?

>> tell me what's your needs and how many/what disks you have.
>
> Right now I have a 750GB (with another on order) and a 320GB.  The box is a
> multi-purpose home server with mail, several websites, and a bunch of local
> file streaming (from MP3 and ripped DVDs to Apple's Time Machine storage).

so make system and userdata except huge files on 320GB, and make gstripe 
of 750GB disks to store huge files.

two filesystems.

>
>> UFS is best-performer on real load, runs on almost no RAM, but uses more
>> if available for caching.
>
> That's my main beef with ZFS at the moment.  I don't mind if it uses a lot of
> RAM - that's what I bought it for! - but that it doesn't seem to use it
> effectively (at least on my workload).

it simply wastes RAM and CPU power. same thing takes 10-20 times more CPU 
that with UFS, where CPU load is close to unnoticable.

even if it has some features you may consider nice, it's not worth 
using bloatware.

Bloatware should be ALWAYS avoided no matter how fast your hardware is and 
how much RAM do you have.