From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 3 02:45:23 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31661065672 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 02:45:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from DStaal@usa.net) Received: from mail.magehandbook.com (173-8-4-45-WashingtonDC.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.8.4.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A443E8FC0A for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 02:45:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (Mac-Pro.magehandbook.com [192.168.1.50]) by mail.magehandbook.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3W4kCc6jXgz82; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:45:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:44:19 -0400 From: Daniel Staal To: Simon , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <28E46800DA3FF0CE6CA74C69@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> In-Reply-To: <20120602223934.D0146106564A@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20120602223934.D0146106564A@hub.freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Subject: Re: Anyone using freebsd ZFS for large storage servers? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: FreeBSD Questions List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 02:45:23 -0000 --As of June 2, 2012 6:32:39 PM -0400, Simon is alleged to have said: > This thread confused me. Is the conclusion of this thread that ZFS is > slow and breaks beyond recovery? I keep seeing two sides to this coin. I > can't decide whether to use ZFS or hardware RAID. Why does EMC use > hardware RAID? --As for the rest, it is mine. It appears to be the conclusion of Wojciech Puchar that ZFS is slow, and breaks beyond recovery. The rest of us don't appear to have issues. I will agree that ZFS could use a good worst-case scenario 'fsck' like tool. However, between at home and at work (where it's used on Solaris), the only time I've ever been in a situation where it would be needed was when I was playing with the disks in several low-level tools; the situation was entirely self-inflicted, and would have caused major trouble for any file system. (If I'd been storing data on it, I would have needed to go to backups. Again, this would have been the case for any file system.) ZFS can be a complicated beast: It's not the best choice for a single, small, disk. It may take tuning to work to it's full potential, and it's fairly resource-intensive. However, for large storage sets there is no other file system out there at the moment that's as flexible, or as useful, in my opinion. Daniel T. Staal --------------------------------------------------------------- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. ---------------------------------------------------------------