Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:08:19 +0200 From: hw <hw@adminart.net> To: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dead slow update servers Message-ID: <87ef2i64ho.fsf@toy.adminart.net> In-Reply-To: <20190715171551.4398e18aae6b91e2ee01333c@sohara.org> (Steve O'Hara-Smith's message of "Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:15:51 %2B0100") References: <87sgrbi3qg.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <20190712171910.GA25091@neutralgood.org> <871ryuj3ex.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <CAGLDxTW8zw2d%2BaBGOmBgEhipjq6ocn536fH_NScMiDD7hD=eSw@mail.gmail.com> <874l3qfvqw.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <20190714011303.GA25317@neutralgood.org> <87v9w58apd.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <0ed2aef9-0cb8-b7ab-711e-34f139c60285@osfux.nl> <87zhlgqlqz.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <20190715055400.8528e4ea2b4b575b8649d7b1@sohara.org> <871ryrl4vz.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <20190715171551.4398e18aae6b91e2ee01333c@sohara.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> writes: > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:00:16 +0200 > hw <hw@adminart.net> wrote: > >> Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> writes: >> >> > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:44:52 +0200 >> > hw <hw@adminart.net> wrote: >> > >> >> What is the point of doing this? When you have hardware RAID, just use >> >> it rather than ZFS. >> > >> > ZFS is a far better solution than hardware RAID and any other >> > file system. The only reason for using hardware RAID is because you >> > cannot use ZFS for some reason. >> >> It's more like the only reason not to use hardware RAID is when you >> don't have it. > > Nope, I have hardware RAID available I leave it disabled and run > ZFS on drives as JBOD. That requires special hardware. With standard hardware, the disks are inaccessible when the RAID controller is disabled, and there is no JBOD. When you have special hardware, why didn't you omit the hardware RAID you're not using anyway when putting it together? >> ZFS is just another file system with its advantages and disadvantages. >> That doesn't make it generally the best solution. > > ZFS is a file system with an *integrated* redundancy layer, the > coupling between the two has benefits than cannot be matched by separate > RAID and filesystem. That doesn't make ZFS generally the best solution. Have you checked the support for FreeBSD on common servers made by HP or Dell? The lack of it makes FreeBSD a bad choice before starting to think about ZFS, and ZFS would be a bad choice on such hardware for its lack of JBODs. Having to buy special hardware and/or putting your servers together yourself also doesn't make ZFS the best solution. It's just one of the disadvantages of ZFS. >> You could even say ZFS is generally the worst solution because it is >> incompatible with common hard- and software. Nonetheless, under the >> right circumstances, ZFS can still be the best solution. And why aren't >> there any hardware ZFS controllers? > > We call them file servers or NAS boxes depending on which decade we > learned our terminology. A controller card doesn't make a server, no matter how you call it. Besides, accessing files over the network isn't always the best solution, either.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87ef2i64ho.fsf>