Rich Pieri notes:
> there is a flaw (or possibly several) in the ext4 [that] causes extent
> corruption and data loss.
> fsck will *not* repair an ext4 filesystem in this state.
The ext4 filesystem has been the mainstream default on most Linux distros since
2008. I’ve been using a large number
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 05:15:51 -0700
Rich Braun wrote:
> The ext4 filesystem has been the mainstream default on most Linux
> distros since 2008. I’ve been using a large number of systems using
RHEL 7's default is XFS. SLES 12's and SLES 15's default is a mix of
Btrfs and XFS.
> this filesystem,
Another thing to keep in mind is that ZFS does have one flaw; it's a
memory hog. If you have a large ZFS filesystem you will need a LOT of
RAM to get acceptable performance. But it does represent the current
state of the art for file system data integrity.
I have to allow that my only experience
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:55:57PM -0400, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
> Another thing to keep in mind is that ZFS does have one flaw; it's a
> memory hog. If you have a large ZFS filesystem you will need a LOT of
> RAM to get acceptable performance. But it does represent the current
> state of
I don't think any of the usual bootloaders support ZFS. The usual way
to handle that is to create a small /boot filesystem using something
else like ext4, just like you did back in the days when large hard
drives weren't supported by the BIOS and therefore the bootloader
couldn't access their
My NAS boxes each have 16GB. One has two 4TB and two 3TB drives in
mirrored pairs; the other has three 1.5TB drives in a RAIDZ1 setup.
And that's just for being a NAS. I would probably need more RAM,
especially on the one with four drives, if I were also running
applications on them.
Why two
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 02:18:12PM -0400, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
> My NAS boxes each have 16GB. One has two 4TB and two 3TB drives in
> mirrored pairs; the other has three 1.5TB drives in a RAIDZ1 setup.
> And that's just for being a NAS. I would probably need more RAM,
> especially on the
On 10/26/18 2:22 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
On 10/26/18 1:55 PM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind is that ZFS does have one flaw; it's a
memory hog. If you have a large ZFS filesystem you will need a LOT of
RAM to get acceptable performance. But it does represent the
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:32:26 -0400
Marco Milano wrote:
> How did you get the root filesystem under ZFS?
>
> Is there a nice/clean/easy recipe ?
Debian does not include ZFS so not "clean". You have to do a normal
install (on XFS), install the ZFS on Linux packages, build your zpool,
copy XFS to
On 10/26/18 1:55 PM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind is that ZFS does have one flaw; it's a
memory hog. If you have a large ZFS filesystem you will need a LOT of
RAM to get acceptable performance. But it does represent the current
state of the art for file system
On 10/26/18 11:38 AM, Rich Pieri wrote:
Having recently-ish rebuilt my home server with full ZFS I have to say
that ZFS makes backups ridiculously easy. And quick.
How did you get the root filesystem under ZFS?
Is there a nice/clean/easy recipe ?
-- Marco
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 02:30:10PM -0400, Marco Milano wrote:
>
>
> On 10/26/18 2:22 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 10/26/18 1:55 PM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote:
> > > > > Another thing to keep in mind is that ZFS does have one flaw; it's a
> > > > > memory hog. If you have a large
12 matches
Mail list logo
