From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 3 05:42:50 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 6B734106566B for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 05:42:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kudzu@tenebras.com) Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9718FC0A for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 05:42:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2so4920736pbb.13 for ; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:42:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=vTc1siNT1CZxyV8eg+pyu1FIGLFJREmYr/TljUGr5bI=; b=L3M+nDcyX0x+3fG//HX8tktEgZraG0Oh9a8/7Lfvop58qby316HIhd86h4wkXzXWEa iXpa/O4U+OpzEV2L4g/PsWDQXbDzaOtIzKfUvlfUDHsPSLxmEUn05jmIWq2B+qX9ctaL 7ssDjwOxsDTS2QRIkcyQjGthVAXmyDgc8lZJKOpHN4IGuW5WGFUu4uUh/T/xoy6eFsSz AoUQ8vDBxPcbSZDb8EQqxVJ1Zh4F/lQlwgcorniMNTISsFzpJJ5hlimrE/R3G7FA2Zt/ TYLk045HhKciZ/QkaazkdCwI9ShVhwiwmoQtu5cMpMdI1W5hTXOkE1GJgQ6yXYZxpQP9 vXXw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.136.65 with SMTP id py1mr26230134pbb.81.1338702169789; Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.202.8 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:42:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <28E46800DA3FF0CE6CA74C69@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> References: <20120602223934.D0146106564A@hub.freebsd.org> <28E46800DA3FF0CE6CA74C69@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:42:49 -0700 Message-ID: From: Michael Sierchio To: FreeBSD Questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn0E0y78API5ytiZM8PtyHtN++flij79oD721XAqunvzuM92qahbZbKwk6/eH9pNKwH8Zyd Cc: Simon Subject: Re: Anyone using freebsd ZFS for large storage servers? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 05:42:50 -0000 On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Daniel Staal wrote: > I will agree that ZFS could use a good worst-case scenario 'fsck' like to= ol. Worst-case scenario? That's when fsck doesn't work. Quickly followed by a sinking feeling. > ZFS can be a complicated beast: It's not the best choice for a single, > small, disk. =A0It may take tuning to work to it's full potential, and it= 's > fairly resource-intensive. =A0However, for large storage sets there is no > other file system out there at the moment that's as flexible, or as usefu= l, > in my opinion. I don't even see the point of using it as a root drive. But this thread is about large file servers, and I wouldn't seriously consider using anything but ZFS. NO filesystem has a mean time to data loss of infinity. If your disk traffic is primarily uncacheable random reads, you might be better off with mirrored disks. I guess that's what the traffic is like at the internet cafe where Wojciech serves coffee. ;-) I tend to use RAIDZ-2 or RAIDZ-3 for most large installations.