From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 20 22:28:15 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CE51065672 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:28:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wonslung@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f211.google.com (mail-ew0-f211.google.com [209.85.219.211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235408FC1C for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:28:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so5535792ewy.13 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:28:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WudWoODVF+Eqdc56a7t7fReTib/am7gbcr+R+pny+U8=; b=AbcrPPI43OcbjN2+TMO+HmI2wklW9OtHj2FkeU9x3lutHQltyCqZ2u0SzU0HhSnkVt XPFQh8c4zHzrHTd2hchHqlKVG78LmvmpivP+x+wxsZ1jJuVPuBxO2rcFqcn/JJm2R8zy kw8gvRUkXeU2lF12vNW8XM0d0GPN7y4UTtbIY= 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=L0C4K0TTnlhGCrLwfZPSHVNT/sHff5qP5iEh1nDxkj6JidWLy5KnUHMhcouSkEvj/R d42USmnsaeAD+Fi1P2rGk/t1K/UnNo1HiiROfw6l/1MvFa8PxX5RoXxQjwDd1JKEm99n d/UDpfRsbPnOxM5OSiM+rOJxxqW0zcRDtCUM4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.86.144 with SMTP id w16mr2218774wee.59.1261348094065; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:28:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4B2E95AE.9040402@fsn.hu> References: <20091030223225.GI5120@datapipe.com> <4AEB6D79.5070703@feral.com> <4B2E0FA9.1050003@fsn.hu> <4B2E65FC.9070609@feral.com> <4B2E95AE.9040402@fsn.hu> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:28:14 -0500 Message-ID: From: Thomas Burgess To: Attila Nagy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Matthew Jacob Subject: Re: Plans for Logged/Journaled UFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:28:15 -0000 each version of FreeBSD to have ZFS has gotten better. 7.0 was cool, but buggy. 7.1 fixed some stuff, but required a lot of tuning 7.2 amd64 made it possible to run without any tuning on some systems and now in 8.0 amd64 it's quite smooth for me. I think the benefits outweigh the issues. ZFS recently saved me from some serious data loss due to a failing raid controller. end to end data integrity via checksums is great. On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Attila Nagy wrote: > Matthew Jacob wrote: > >> >> >>>>> >>>> Which use cases can you name? >>>> >>> Reliable data storage. :( >>> >> Jeez, I wrote this months ago. >> >> Do you feel that improving UFS is a better way to go? >> > No, I think ZFS is the good way (although it has its problems as well). And > I'm very grateful to the guys who worked on this. > I've just summed my experiences, which tells me ZFS is still not ready for > prime time. Where UFS keeps running for years, ZFS suddenly crashes, or > worse, just freezes, in a way, which is hard to debug for the average user > (a crashdump is easy, but when I can't even go to the debugger, that's > hard). > I hope that things will settle down and ZFS will be as much reliable in > FreeBSD as UFS is now (or even better, I've had some bad crashes with UFS > thanks to on-disk data corruption). > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >