From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov 19 00:17:21 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4202F106568F
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:17:21 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dan-freebsd-fs@ourbrains.org)
Received: from ourbrains.org (li48-221.members.linode.com [66.246.76.221])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C9A0A8FC24
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:17:20 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dan-freebsd-fs@ourbrains.org)
Received: (qmail 21888 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Nov 2008 00:17:42 -0000
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:17:42 -0500
From: Dan <dan-freebsd-fs@ourbrains.org>
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20081119001742.GA21835@ourbrains.org>
Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
References: <20081109174303.GA5146@ourbrains.org>
	<20081109184349.GG51239@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
	<4920D879.3070806@jrv.org> <20081117050441.GA16855@ourbrains.org>
	<20081118175210.GA3753@hyperion.scode.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081118175210.GA3753@hyperion.scode.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: Will XFS be adopted
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:17:21 -0000

Peter Schuller(peter.schuller@infidyne.com)@2008.11.18 18:52:10 +0100:
> However, the implication when people say that ZFS "wastes" a bunch of
> memory, seems to be that it somehow just uses up a bunch of memory for
> no good reason other than some kind of bloat. This is not the case.

Has anyone done any bechmarks? Is the cache really helping that much? If
it doesn't, and it performs similarly to other journaling FSes that do
not use this much RAM, well, if it's not waste then what?

Does it guarantee the same atomicity that UFS does? Is it OK to run an
email server on it? Will I lose messages in cases of powerfail/crash?