Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 14:58:57 +0200 From: Jeremie Le Hen <jlh@FreeBSD.org> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> Cc: lev@FreeBSD.org, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Subject: Re: UFS+J panics on HEAD Message-ID: <20120525125857.GA47353@felucia.tataz.chchile.org> In-Reply-To: <4FBE92FC.5030001@FreeBSD.org> 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> <20120523220533.GA11122@lonesome.com> <4FBE92FC.5030001@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:58:52PM +0200, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 24/05/2012 00:05, Mark Linimon wrote: > > 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. > > - ZFS is not optimal for situations where there are a lot of small, > randomly dispersed IOs around the disk space. Like in any sort of > RDBMS. This is very true for reads, not for writes because it is a COW filesystem so writes are usually sequencial disk-wise. -- Jeremie Le Hen Men are born free and equal. Later on, they're on their own. Jean Yanne
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120525125857.GA47353>