Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:33:44 -0800 From: matt <sendtomatt@gmail.com> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again. Message-ID: <51006548.7050807@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232322150.2302@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <CACpH0Mf6sNb8JOsTzC%2BWSfQRB62%2BZn7VtzEnihEKmEV2aO2p%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301211201570.9447@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20130122073641.GH30633@server.rulingia.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232121430.1659@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAFqOu6hYiPDEpr9uQdE%2BCfmcL7%2Bhumpx2W7jcnLKcJdOG8bzFg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232224210.1971@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAFqOu6ijFG=0daO2PRkDckHdCBdVv7UZRRXbCada73H6wa9cpQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232322150.2302@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/23/13 14:27, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> > > both "works". For todays trend of solving everything by more hardware > ZFS may even have "enough" performance. > > But still it is dangerous for a reasons i explained, as well as it > promotes bad setups and layouts like making single filesystem out of > large amount of disks. This is bad for no matter what filesystem and > RAID setup you use, or even what OS. > > ZFS mirror performance is quite good (both random IO and sequential), and resilvers/scrubs are measured in an hour or less. You can always make pool out of these instead of RAIDZ if you can get away with less total available space. I think RAIDZ vs Gmirror is a bad comparison, you can use a ZFS mirror with all the ZFS features, plus N-way (not sure if gmirror does this). Regarding single large filesystems, there is an old saying about not putting all your eggs into one basket, even if it's a great basket :) Matt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51006548.7050807>