Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:27:53 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Artem Belevich <art@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again. Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232322150.2302@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <CAFqOu6ijFG=0daO2PRkDckHdCBdVv7UZRRXbCada73H6wa9cpQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACpH0Mf6sNb8JOsTzC%2BWSfQRB62%2BZn7VtzEnihEKmEV2aO2p%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301211201570.9447@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20130122073641.GH30633@server.rulingia.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232121430.1659@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAFqOu6hYiPDEpr9uQdE%2BCfmcL7%2Bhumpx2W7jcnLKcJdOG8bzFg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232224210.1971@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAFqOu6ijFG=0daO2PRkDckHdCBdVv7UZRRXbCada73H6wa9cpQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >> even you need normal performance use gmirror and UFS > > I've no objection. If it works for you -- go for it. both "works". For todays trend of solving everything by more hardware ZFS may even have "enough" performance. But still it is dangerous for a reasons i explained, as well as it promotes bad setups and layouts like making single filesystem out of large amount of disks. This is bad for no matter what filesystem and RAID setup you use, or even what OS.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232322150.2302>