Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:05:33 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, lev@FreeBSD.org, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: UFS+J panics on HEAD Message-ID: <20120523220533.GA11122@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <8D72700F5CA4461BAD1C98908689CB9E@multiplay.co.uk> References: <38A5BC8F-A8FB-4371-AB1D-9548F5957254@lists.zabbadoz.net> <20120523131046.GC2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <12410676034.20120524013853@serebryakov.spb.ru> <8D72700F5CA4461BAD1C98908689CB9E@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:58:48PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > While it might be a shame to see FFS go by the wayside are there any > big reasons why you would rather stick with FFS instead of moving > to ZFS with all the benefits that brings? - ZFS eats bytes for breakfast. It is completely inappropriate for anything with less than 4GB RAM. - ZFS performs poorly under disk-nearly-full conditions. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120523220533.GA11122>