Re: UFS+J panics on HEAD

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:58:52PM +0200, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> 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.

This is very true for reads, not for writes because it is a COW
filesystem so writes are usually sequencial disk-wise.

-- 
Jeremie Le Hen

Men are born free and equal.  Later on, they're on their own.
				Jean Yanne