dead slow update servers

Steve O'Hara-Smith steve at
Mon Jul 15 16:16:05 UTC 2019

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:00:16 +0200
hw <hw at> wrote:

> Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve at> writes:
> > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:44:52 +0200
> > hw <hw at> wrote:
> >
> >> What is the point of doing this?  When you have hardware RAID, just use
> >> it rather than ZFS.
> >
> > 	ZFS is a far better solution than hardware RAID and any other
> > file system. The only reason for using hardware RAID is because you
> > cannot use ZFS for some reason.
> It's more like the only reason not to use hardware RAID is when you
> don't have it.

	Nope, I have hardware RAID available I leave it disabled and run
ZFS on drives as JBOD.

> ZFS is just another file system with its advantages and disadvantages.
> That doesn't make it generally the best solution.

	ZFS is a file system with an *integrated* redundancy layer, the
coupling between the two has benefits than cannot be matched by separate
RAID and filesystem.

> You could even say ZFS is generally the worst solution because it is
> incompatible with common hard- and software.  Nonetheless, under the
> right circumstances, ZFS can still be the best solution.  And why aren't
> there any hardware ZFS controllers?

	We call them file servers or NAS boxes depending on which decade we
learned our terminology.

Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list