Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:35:25 -0400 From: Zaphod Beeblebrox <zbeeble@gmail.com> To: Andrew Snow <andrew@modulus.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/138790: [zfs] ZFS ceases caching when mem demand is high Message-ID: <5f67a8c40909152335k747dc9eao5d56f3cfdc77d3e4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4AB03659.9060703@modulus.org> References: <200909150047.n8F0l0MS096713@freefall.freebsd.org> <5f67a8c40909151138l4c4fcd3cnc31bf3f59a781052@mail.gmail.com> <4AB03659.9060703@modulus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Andrew Snow <andrew@modulus.org> wrote: > Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > > ZFS should be better than that. >> > > Why? ZFS is designed for systems with large amounts of memory to spare - I > don't think it should be used for any system with less than 2GB. > > Most brand new systems bought these days will have at least 2GB, if not 4 > or 8GB. > I don't see why that has to be the case. ZFS is certainly _tuned_ for large filesystems, but it's feature set has many more uses. Pretty much the entire world got the memo that unified buffercache was good. As I understand the stuff I've read, the fact that ZFS (in FreeBSD) isn't unified is largely due to making it easier to import (sure... fine... but) --- meaning that it's an item that should be fixed. As I understand it, ZFS is unified on OpenSolaris. > UFS isn't going away, it is still the filesystem preferred for embedded and > low-end systems. > What... snapshots are suddenly unhelpful on smaller systems? I think not.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5f67a8c40909152335k747dc9eao5d56f3cfdc77d3e4>