Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
dick at nagual.nl
Mon Dec 1 13:49:58 PST 2008
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:26:04 +0100 (CET)
Wojciech Puchar <wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> it simply wastes RAM and CPU power. same thing takes 10-20 times more
> CPU that with UFS
ZFS does things that UFS is not capable of. These (bloathware) things
cost memory indeed. But that memory is certainly not wasted.
I also know you cannot be convinced, because you lowe ZFS.
> 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.
True, except ZFS is a big winner and no bloatware. And although you are
pretty stubborn in this matter, I still say this ;-)
ZFS is here to stay. Given the fact it's not quite mature (yet); it is
still under heavy development, but it is also stable enough for rock
solid Solaris 10 servers with ZFS. (and NO, this is not all on Sun
I for one will never go back to filesystems like UFS/UFS2.
My data is quite safe on ZFS; my systems are fast; backups are a snap
with snapshots; the list of PROs is long, very long (and all this for a
still young filesystem...)
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D
+ http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce snv103 ++
+ All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol)
More information about the freebsd-questions