----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Linimon" <lini...@lonesome.com>
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.
It does like more RAM than FFS, but can be tuned to work under
smaller amounts however given current pricing does anyone use HW for
servers with that little RAM?
Sure old i386 machines still running legacy ABC that just works so
no need to upgrade it may still have less than 4GB RAM, but modern
machines running large disk sets are a totally different matter.
- ZFS performs poorly under disk-nearly-full conditions.
Not experienced that here, care to clarify / quantify?
While if this is the case I can see that may cause problems, but the
solution to that is simple don't let your system get that full.
Disks are still relatively cheap even after the disasters, so keep on
top of your space and you wont see that problem; particularly as ZFS
makes it so easy to expand existing pools :)
Regards
steve
================================================
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it.
In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please
telephone +44 845 868 1337
or return the E.mail to postmas...@multiplay.co.uk.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
