From owner-freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Fri Nov 18 08:47:52 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB186C47881 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:47:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80D311DED for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:47:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA1B5284B0; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:47:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-86-49-16-209.net.upcbroadband.cz [86.49.16.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C951D2840C; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:47:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: bhyve: zvols for guest disk - yes or no? To: Jan Bramkamp , freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org References: <5be68f57-c9c5-7c20-f590-1beed55fd6bb@rlwinm.de> From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Message-ID: <582EC02D.4010602@quip.cz> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 09:47:41 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5be68f57-c9c5-7c20-f590-1beed55fd6bb@rlwinm.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:47:52 -0000 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