From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 15 20:16:22 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BCB10656B3 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:16:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ey0-f182.google.com (mail-ey0-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23FD8FC1A for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:16:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eyb7 with SMTP id 7so3222841eyb.13 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:16:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SXWnBlALTmasC1QY5fp+qdH2uI2lmnTf7tE2Z3PEQDs=; b=ZvXfIlmphtXWwW8TpBoZnZP97pPSUAcNPuffvntvEH7KnAq7VwQMqwyVQS6yry7Apg ZmiodXpDwLMepoZVTdvhA5Ij9dtixd0eMjpO9XARmkNGHTjGyzhMayilyQXf13WJqMqK xOsHZRz11JAGEHJEozqTlaGoR2N0PuKbf+2QE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=MiDJWTctB1NlapE8hyINMThFsLYCaxfgRIq4XUAfglMkHy7THtW2RO3pDJBNSOI1op X/KWEx5uFfvVYHFkYDhI9N9pyzti8hDQ3wsEJl9Wghp6mieDX7pRfdVGA9bcWuLlgcfj 6L8/L+Lz8BFs+r8U9ZNlpgB5iFbK79ikK9+BI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.158.140 with SMTP id q12mr7207095wek.14.1289852180462; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:16:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.72.148 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:16:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <84607C0F-183F-455A-B37A-B08030C01A9D@boosten.org> References: <84607C0F-183F-455A-B37A-B08030C01A9D@boosten.org> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:16:20 +0000 Message-ID: From: krad To: Peter Boosten Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Wojciech Puchar , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com, Modulok Subject: Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time? 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: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:16:22 -0000 On 15 November 2010 19:59, Peter Boosten wrote: > > On 15 nov 2010, at 20:37, Chris Rees wrote: > > On 15 November 2010 19:33, Wojciech Puchar > wrote: > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > please elaborate > > > look at archives. i really don't want to repeat the same many times. > > And anyone that actually have clue about what is computer, disk drive, > > reliability and algorithms and can think - after reading how ZFS is > designed > > will understand that. > > > When did you ever 'repeat' that in the first place? Can you provide a > link, I don't recall seeing anyone say that ZFS is a toy. > > > He's consistent in any case (a quick google search reveals this 2008 > message): > > http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg192926.html > > -- > Peter Boosten > http://www.boosten.org > > > > there may be some technical merits in his analysis. however I have been using zfs in production environments for a few years and know it scales very well. Admittedly its in a solaris environment not BSD, but then he is on about the algorithms not the CPU architecture etc. In my experience the performance is good on both intel and sparc enviroments. The more memory and CPU the better as it is resource hungry. But then again it is doing a lot more sophisticated stuff than plain old UFS. From an administration point of view its very easy to use (especially compared to solstice and vinum) and has a lot of cool features, that after a while you find yourself wondering how you managed without them. Having said all that, it remains on whether it will stay the course. I doubt it will be around as long as ufs, as something better will come along in the future I suspect (not convinced on btrfs yet), but one thing is for sure, its set a new benchmark for filesystems