From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Mon Jul 22 07:10:34 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 829F4A993A for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:10:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lee@adminart.net) Received: from mo6-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de (mo6-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de [IPv6:2a01:238:20a:202:5300::12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.smtp.rzone.de", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass Class 2 CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F9D88750F for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:10:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lee@adminart.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1563779430; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=adminart.net; h=References:Message-ID:Date:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=KHvQkBAEHtxjwtUJCUBYbo4u5zxhW7O/W9GZLYGmOic=; b=nioqeHdBn1Db0X6gDRxQYi1uTsR3cCrVpsncRn0QjSa4kq0h2IRCSWbDvf+ByGKrSu k0qcMSWap4oQLC9xljqRdEIXeROZzxxD1VSPAjBS1MxYgAoqDpEYsdHzSjwWHGLVKT0r siQDtO3dRZE/qkjag5cpNSquWeJkYQxnAun0tvJDBUIp5uzPksvsdsGMICAp25Tz0gWP UzGsqYyjBYDiPhSoczqrlTrcHo2E1bmznZRfgMhCu7YSr2It6pwHvTl00M5KhE7pLyvY K411Qrp1qOc78ieiqC6qV7rP5/b4lPvJ6x1coCZfP4x+eMVjC9Fsgs7eC+Px8CGBW2uy Iyiw== X-RZG-AUTH: ":O2kGeEG7b/pS1FS4THaxjVF9w0vVgfQ9xGcjwO5WMRo5c+h5ceMqQWZ3yrBp+ARdaXvxIDf7nlw=" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from himinbjorg.adminart.net by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 44.24 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id e0059dv6M7AUqHy (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (curve secp521r1 with 521 ECDH bits, eq. 15360 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:10:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from toy.adminart.net ([192.168.3.55]) by himinbjorg.adminart.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hpSSr-00027j-LF; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:10:29 +0200 Received: from lee by toy.adminart.net with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hpSSr-0001L9-AI; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 09:10:29 +0200 From: hw To: Steve O'Hara-Smith Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dead slow update servers In-Reply-To: <20190715171551.4398e18aae6b91e2ee01333c@sohara.org> (Steve O'Hara-Smith's message of "Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:15:51 +0100") Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:08:19 +0200 Organization: my virtual residence Message-ID: <87ef2i64ho.fsf@toy.adminart.net> References: <87sgrbi3qg.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <20190712171910.GA25091@neutralgood.org> <871ryuj3ex.fsf@toy.adminart.net> <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> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1F9D88750F X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=adminart.net header.s=strato-dkim-0002 header.b=nioqeHdB X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.19 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[adminart.net:s=strato-dkim-0002]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[adminart.net]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: smtpin.rzone.de]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[adminart.net:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.36)[-0.359,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[hw@adminart.net,lee@adminart.net]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[2.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.3.5.2.0.2.0.a.0.2.0.8.3.2.0.1.0.a.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6724, ipnet:2a01:238::/32, country:DE]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[hw@adminart.net,lee@adminart.net]; IP_SCORE(-0.72)[ipnet: 2a01:238::/32(-3.20), asn: 6724(-0.42), country: DE(-0.01)] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 07:10:34 -0000 Steve O'Hara-Smith writes: > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 17:00:16 +0200 > hw wrote: > >> Steve O'Hara-Smith writes: >> >> > On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:44:52 +0200 >> > hw 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.