Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 16:35:20 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Kaya Saman <kayasaman@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anyone using freebsd ZFS for large storage servers? Message-ID: <20120601163520.f130cdcd.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <CAPj0R5KiUh3HFgbWCy8KDHhCA8L6-t5P85qFovDN%2Br9OHm90Og@mail.gmail.com> References: <CACxnZKM__Lt9LMabyUC_HOCg2zsMT=3bpqwVrGj16py1A=qffg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206011048010.2497@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAPj0R5%2BLcKUGijT17W6RXBz_KQxz5nZYP0vfPY3HNxNEyw0Eaw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206011435430.20357@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAPj0R5KiUh3HFgbWCy8KDHhCA8L6-t5P85qFovDN%2Br9OHm90Og@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:05:57 +0100, Kaya Saman wrote: > It was my impression that ZFS doesn't actually format the disk as > stores data as raw information on the hard disk directly rather then > using an actual "file system" structure as such. In worst... in ultra-worst abysmal inexpected exceptional and unbelievable narrow cases, when you don't have or can't access a backup (which you should have even when using ZFS), and you _need_ to do some forensic analysis on disks, ZFS seems to be a worse solution than UFS. On ZFS, you never can predict where the data will go. Add several disks to the problem, a combination of striping and mirroring mechanisms, and you will see that things start to become complicated. I do _not_ want to try to claim a "ZFS inferiority due to missing backups", but there may be occassions where (except performance), low-level file system aspects of UFS might be superior to using ZFS. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120601163520.f130cdcd.freebsd>