Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:49:51 +0100 From: dick hoogendijk <dick@nagual.nl> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives? Message-ID: <20081201224951.da6b6c53.dick@nagual.nl> In-Reply-To: <20081201222221.L11692@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <200812010959.15647.kirk@strauser.com> <20081201184722.S10680@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <200812011321.43430.kirk@strauser.com> <20081201222221.L11692@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:26:04 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@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 hardware). 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)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081201224951.da6b6c53.dick>