From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 1 21:49:58 2008 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 4DD2D1065676 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:49:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dick@nagual.nl) Received: from nagual.nl (cc20684-a.assen1.dr.home.nl [82.74.10.158]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1098FC14 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 21:49:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dick@nagual.nl) Received: from westmark (westmark.nagual.nl [192.168.11.22]) by nagual.nl (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/yanta) with SMTP id mB1LpN9q009143 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:51:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:49:51 +0100 From: dick hoogendijk To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20081201224951.da6b6c53.dick@nagual.nl> In-Reply-To: <20081201222221.L11692@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <200812010959.15647.kirk@strauser.com> <20081201184722.S10680@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <200812011321.43430.kirk@strauser.com> <20081201222221.L11692@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Organization: de nagual X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.14.3; i386-pc-solaris2.11) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 192.168.11.35 Subject: Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives? 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, 01 Dec 2008 21:49:58 -0000 On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:26:04 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar wrote: > it simply wastes RAM and CPU power. same thing takes 10-20 times more > CPU that with UFS ZFS does things that UFS is not capable of. These (bloathware) things cost memory indeed. But that memory is certainly not wasted. I also know you cannot be convinced, because you lowe ZFS. > even if it has some features you may consider nice, it's not worth > using bloatware. > > Bloatware should be ALWAYS avoided no matter how fast your hardware > is and how much RAM do you have. True, except ZFS is a big winner and no bloatware. And although you are pretty stubborn in this matter, I still say this ;-) ZFS is here to stay. Given the fact it's not quite mature (yet); it is still under heavy development, but it is also stable enough for rock solid Solaris 10 servers with ZFS. (and NO, this is not all on Sun hardware). I for one will never go back to filesystems like UFS/UFS2. My data is quite safe on ZFS; my systems are fast; backups are a snap with snapshots; the list of PROs is long, very long (and all this for a still young filesystem...) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce snv103 ++ + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol)