Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 16:08:28 -0400 From: "Zaphod Beeblebrox" <zbeeble@gmail.com> To: "Andrew Hill" <lists@thefrog.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Arnaud Houdelette <arnaud.houdelette@tzim.net> Subject: Re: ZFS on root and disk write caching. Message-ID: <5f67a8c40805241308s15c98737w29bd66c0273bfe95@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <16a6ef710805240926t3b4f631bja349fed8df6785ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <16a6ef710805240926t3b4f631bja349fed8df6785ff@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Andrew Hill <lists@thefrog.net> wrote: > but what struck me as odd is the desire to create two separate zpools - one > for data storage and one for the system. i think one of zfs's greatest > strengths is the abstraction/separation between disks and filesystems. There are a few reasons to consider more than one zpool. One is performance. Another is the ability to boot from it (AFAIK, you can only boot from mirror'd pools). The ZFS abstraction is cool --- but it's not magic.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5f67a8c40805241308s15c98737w29bd66c0273bfe95>