Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:16:16 +1000 From: Andrew Snow <andrew@modulus.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY Message-ID: <48E080C0.9070103@modulus.org> In-Reply-To: <20080929040025.GA97332@icarus.home.lan> References: <20080921213426.GA13923@0lsen.net> <20080921215203.GC9494@icarus.home.lan> <20080921215930.GA25826@0lsen.net> <20080921220720.GA9847@icarus.home.lan> <249873145.20080926213341@takeda.tk> <20080927051413.GA42700@icarus.home.lan> <765067435.20080926223557@takeda.tk> <20080927064417.GA43638@icarus.home.lan> <588787159.20080927003750@takeda.tk> <5f67a8c40809282030l7888d942q548d570cd0b33be9@mail.gmail.com> <20080929040025.GA97332@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> However, as a core general purpose filesystem, it seems to have flaws, not > the least of which is a re-separation of file cache and memory cache. For me, this doesn't matter because ZFS is so much faster than UFS overall. Even if you don't use any of its features, the latest version does sequential I/O and heavy random I/O faster than UFS on the same hardware for me. Cases where UFS is faster are proving to be the exception rather than the rule. However, I cannot recommend its use until it is stable, which it currently still is not, under very heavy load. - Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48E080C0.9070103>