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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
