Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> <troll> >> ZFS? >> </troll> > > You say troll, I say possibility; I'll certainly consider it.
Actually, I would be very interested in using ZFS for my data. The "troll" was more about the fact that the ZFS license was explicitly designed to be GPL-2 incompatible, hence preventing it from being included into Linux (it would require a clean-room rewrite from the specs). > However, the demos that I've seen about ZFS stress how easy it is to > administer, and all the LVM-style features it has. Personally, > I've /very/ comfortable with LVM and am of the opinion that such features > don't actually belong at the "filesystem" layer. I haven't made the step to LVM and am still using a plain old RAID-1 mirror. I'm not that comfortable adding one more layer to the data path, and one more difficulty in case of hard disk failure. > I need to good general purpose filesystem, what matters most to be is: > 1) Online growing of the filesystem, with LVM I use this a lot, I won't > consider a filesystem I can't grow while it is in active use. > 2) Journaling or other techniques (FFS from the *BSD world does something > they don't like to call journaling) that reduce the frequency of full > fscks. > 3) All-round performance, and I don't mind it using extra CPU time or > memory to make filesystem performance better, I have both to spare. > 4) Storage savings (like tail packing or transparent compression) I completely agree with 1) and 2), and 3) and 4) are nice to haves. What I like in ZFS is the data integrity check, i.e. every block gets a checksum, and it can auto-repair in a RAID-Z configuration, something that RAID-1 cannot. So I would add: 5) Reliable data integrity checks and self-healing capability. -- Remy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
