Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:47:41 +0100 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de>, freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bhyve: zvols for guest disk - yes or no? Message-ID: <582EC02D.4010602@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <5be68f57-c9c5-7c20-f590-1beed55fd6bb@rlwinm.de> References: <D991D88D-1327-4580-B6E5-2D59338147C0@punkt.de> <b775f684-98a2-b929-2b13-9753c95fd4f2@rlwinm.de> <D5A6875B-A2AE-4DD9-B941-71146AEF2578@punkt.de> <5be68f57-c9c5-7c20-f590-1beed55fd6bb@rlwinm.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jan Bramkamp wrote on 2016/11/17 11:16: > On 16/11/2016 19:10, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: >>> Without ZFS you would require a reliable hardware RAID controller (if >>> such a magical creature exists) instead (or build a software RAID1+0 >>> from gmirror and gstripe). IMO money is better invested into more RAM >>> keeping ZFS and the admin happy. >> >> And we always use geom_mirror with UFS ... > > That would work but I don't recommend for new setups. ZFS offers you a > lot of operation which in my opinion alone is worth the overhead. > Without ZFS you would have to use either large raw image files in UFS or > fight with an old fashioned volume manager. One thing to note - ZFS isn't holy grail and has own problems too. For example there is not fsck_zfs and there are some cases where you can end up with broken pool and because of its complexity the only thing you can do is to restore from backup. This can occured on ZFS with higher probability than on simple UFS2. Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?582EC02D.4010602>