Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:22:54 +0100 From: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu> To: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Plans for Logged/Journaled UFS Message-ID: <4B2E95AE.9040402@fsn.hu> In-Reply-To: <4B2E65FC.9070609@feral.com> References: <20091030223225.GI5120@datapipe.com> <4AEB6D79.5070703@feral.com> <4B2E0FA9.1050003@fsn.hu> <4B2E65FC.9070609@feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Jacob wrote: > >>>> >>> Which use cases can you name? >> Reliable data storage. :( > Jeez, I wrote this months ago. > > Do you feel that improving UFS is a better way to go? No, I think ZFS is the good way (although it has its problems as well). And I'm very grateful to the guys who worked on this. I've just summed my experiences, which tells me ZFS is still not ready for prime time. Where UFS keeps running for years, ZFS suddenly crashes, or worse, just freezes, in a way, which is hard to debug for the average user (a crashdump is easy, but when I can't even go to the debugger, that's hard). I hope that things will settle down and ZFS will be as much reliable in FreeBSD as UFS is now (or even better, I've had some bad crashes with UFS thanks to on-disk data corruption).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B2E95AE.9040402>