On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Daniel Staal <dst...@usa.net> wrote: > I will agree that ZFS could use a good worst-case scenario 'fsck' like tool.
Worst-case scenario? That's when fsck doesn't work. Quickly followed by a sinking feeling. > ZFS can be a complicated beast: It's not the best choice for a single, > small, disk. It may take tuning to work to it's full potential, and it's > fairly resource-intensive. However, for large storage sets there is no > other file system out there at the moment that's as flexible, or as useful, > in my opinion. I don't even see the point of using it as a root drive. But this thread is about large file servers, and I wouldn't seriously consider using anything but ZFS. NO filesystem has a mean time to data loss of infinity. If your disk traffic is primarily uncacheable random reads, you might be better off with mirrored disks. I guess that's what the traffic is like at the internet cafe where Wojciech serves coffee. ;-) I tend to use RAIDZ-2 or RAIDZ-3 for most large installations. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
