Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:42:49 -0700 From: Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Cc: Simon <simon@optinet.com> Subject: Re: Anyone using freebsd ZFS for large storage servers? Message-ID: <CAHu1Y73Q4AaS2ORr7MQy0uEFSX2N30yC2YqsMaFN5bA2=KvawA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <28E46800DA3FF0CE6CA74C69@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> References: <20120602223934.D0146106564A@hub.freebsd.org> <28E46800DA3FF0CE6CA74C69@mac-pro.magehandbook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Daniel Staal <DStaal@usa.net> 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHu1Y73Q4AaS2ORr7MQy0uEFSX2N30yC2YqsMaFN5bA2=KvawA>