On 24/05/2012 00:05, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:58:48PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: >> > While it might be a shame to see FFS go by the wayside are there any >> > big reasons why you would rather stick with FFS instead of moving >> > to ZFS with all the benefits that brings? > - ZFS eats bytes for breakfast. It is completely inappropriate > for anything with less than 4GB RAM. > > - ZFS performs poorly under disk-nearly-full conditions. - ZFS is not optimal for situations where there are a lot of small, randomly dispersed IOs around the disk space. Like in any sort of RDBMS. Even so, ZFS is certainly my personal default nowadays. On a machine of any size, the question is not "should I use ZFS?" but "are there any good reasons why I shouldn't use ZFS? (And if so, what could I do to make it possible to use ZFS anyhow...)" With Andriy's recent patches to zfsboot to extend support for Boot Environments, it's all starting to look particularly sexy. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:27 UTC