Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:52:48 +0200 From: "Valentin Bud" <valentin.bud@gmail.com> To: "Kirk Strauser" <kirk@strauser.com> Cc: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives? Message-ID: <139b44430812012252u45786fa6q888cf93d5f65bb67@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200812011321.43430.kirk@strauser.com> References: <200812010959.15647.kirk@strauser.com> <20081201184722.S10680@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <200812011321.43430.kirk@strauser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> wrote: > On Monday 01 December 2008 11:49:46 Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have "lots of >> filesystems". why don't just make one or one per disk? > > For all the usual reasons: faster fsck, ability to set attributes on each > filesystem (noexec, noatime, ro), a runaway process writing to /tmp won't cause > problems in /var, etc. > > A big local reason is that Amanda is much easier to configure when you're using > a bunch of filesystems because it runs tar with --one-file-system set. If /var > is separate from / and I want to back them up separately, I just tell Amanda > to dump / and /var. If /var is part of / then I have to say "dump / except > for /var (and /tmp and /usr and ...)". Why don't you use the ZFS backup tools: snapshots, zfs send | receive (this in case you have a second box with zfs) or zfs send | [ tar | gzip | bzip ] to compress the snapshot and do whatever you want with it. The snapshots backup file system (data sets) and it's ultra fast: # du -h /home/user 20G /home/user # time zfs snapshot tank/home/user@021208 zfs snapshot tank/home/user@021208 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.855 total Now the compression will take a little more but you get the idea. a great day, v > >> i have one per disk/mirror configuration everywhere except one place where >> i made separate filesystem for /var/spool/squid for some reasons. > > Oh, there are definitely advantages to that setup. It just complicates certain > admin functions (see above). With something like ZFS that makes creating new > filesystems trivially easy, they're nice to use. > >> tell me what's your needs and how many/what disks you have. > > Right now I have a 750GB (with another on order) and a 320GB. The box is a > multi-purpose home server with mail, several websites, and a bunch of local > file streaming (from MP3 and ripped DVDs to Apple's Time Machine storage). > >> UFS is best-performer on real load, runs on almost no RAM, but uses more >> if available for caching. > > That's my main beef with ZFS at the moment. I don't mind if it uses a lot of > RAM - that's what I bought it for! - but that it doesn't seem to use it > effectively (at least on my workload). > > - Kirk > _______________________________________________ > 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" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?139b44430812012252u45786fa6q888cf93d5f65bb67>