Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:36:08 +0100 From: "Daniel Andersson" <engywook@gmail.com> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A few questions about ZFS Message-ID: <24adbbc00803231536h7dd6cddey7a0244e1df9a48b9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <24adbbc00803211521t26b271e5wc8e3a27f228e29e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <24adbbc00803211521t26b271e5wc8e3a27f228e29e4@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
That sounds promising! Too bad my server doesn't have that kind of hardware. =D Might try zfs after all. Got any recommendations on disks? preferrably 500gb. Then again, the size and make of the disks doesn't matter with zfs, does it? " I am using zfs with a 6-disk raidz (2.5tb) pool and another non-replicated pool as root. It is used as a media server/gateway/firewall. I've had no zfs related panics since moving to a core 2 cpu with 4gb ram. I think I've encountered the zfs/nfs deadlock twice, requiring a reboot each time. The load isn't stellar, but I was using it to rip/encode DVDs, download a dozen or so torrents and stream several media files all at the same time. The only instance where there was a hiccup was if I was extracting several large archives simultaneously, the media streamer would hiccup once or twice until the system compensated better for the sudden increase in disk I/O. All in all, with zfs, I feel like the two times I did have to reboot I avoided a lengthy fsck. The ability to scrub the disks and detect data corruption (which has not occurred) as well as the plusses of pooled storage without spending far too much on a raid controller outweigh any potential downsides. Now if only I could find a PCIe SATA controller with 4 or 8 ports that isn't one of those expensive RAIDs (prefer to invest more in disks than controllers)."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24adbbc00803231536h7dd6cddey7a0244e1df9a48b9>