On 12 Apr 2019, at 1:45am, Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote: > ZFS
I've used ZFS. ZFS is a great file system for some purposes. Fully-fledged databases isn't one of them. Someone already mentioned the problem of a transaction-based DBMS running on a transaction-based filesystem. I can add the problems of a minimum-change block-structured database running on a block-structured copy-on-write file system on solid state drives. Also read this <https://blog.docbert.org/oracle-on-zfs/> and substitute SQLite for Oracle. (Ironically, ZFS is a registered trademark belonging to Oracle Corporation.) (Okay, I'm not 100% certain that SQLite has exactly the same problems as this article discusses. So take it with a pinch of salt or we can start a new thread.) OP says he's running on a Mac. He's probably using APFS, which uses some of the techniques ZFS does (most relevantly copy-on-write). But when APFS was being designed in 2016, macOS already used SQLite internally and high-end Macs already had SSDs, not spinning drives. The people who designed APFS would have been worrying about SQLite and Solid State Drives from the first day they tested APFS on real computers. I doubt the same is true of ZFS which was designed sometime around 2004. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
