Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:27:50 +1100 From: Andrew Snow <andrew@modulus.org> To: Dan <dan-freebsd-fs@ourbrains.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will XFS be adopted Message-ID: <49235D86.4050106@modulus.org> In-Reply-To: <20081119001742.GA21835@ourbrains.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> <20081119001742.GA21835@ourbrains.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dan wrote: > Has anyone done any bechmarks? Is the cache really helping that much? 1. The downside to the ZFS benefits of instantaneous snapshots, clones, and filesystem-level RAID, is that it has to go through its metadata when you want to search directories or read files. A big cache helps make that faster as the commonly loaded tree nodes are pre-fetched and cached. File data is also pre-fetched, ZFS can handle multiple forward or backward reading streams per open file. 2. Much of the cache is used for writing cache, the more memory that can be thrown at that the more optimised the writing to disk can be. > 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? As I said above, the other filesystems don't give you built-in instant snapshotting and RAID. > Does it guarantee the same atomicity that UFS does? Yes. > Is it OK to run an email server on it? Will I lose messages in cases of powerfail/crash? It is perfect for running email because the transparent compression saves you space and I/O time. However, I would wait until it has been considered stable and moved into the 7-STABLE tree before deploying a production server. - Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49235D86.4050106>