Wojciech Puchar wrote:
[snip]
mirror. that's all.
Which doesn't really address the issue of what happens if a drive
that is
part of a big ZFS is removed (because it's broken).
it will say "read error" on all files and directories that happened
to be placed on that disk!
Just to be cl
did you ever got your UFS filesystem broken not because your drive failed?
That is not the point here. I have been using FreeBSD sind version 3.3,
which was released in 1999. Before that I used Linux. So I can't even look
while i was using linux - crashed filesystem was quite common without an
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:39:52 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> did you ever got your UFS filesystem broken not because your drive failed?
That is not the point here. I have been using FreeBSD sind version 3.3,
which was released in 1999. Before that I used Linux. So I can't even look
back on 10
/usr to spread the load while making worlds and I mount /usr/obj
asynchronously to increase write speed. With several filesystems I can
spread to load the way I want it and decide where the data goes. And one
broken fs doesn't screw up the others in the process.
did you ever got your UFS filesys
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:55:12 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> that's like 64-bit soundcards that have to be "better" than 32-bit, while
> most of them was unable to actually get past 13-14 bit (most past 12) with
> it's signal to noise ratio.
Maybe that's not quite the same thing. :-)
Howev
On 03/02/2008, Christian Baer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 21:38:49 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well, the best, I think.
>
> I take ist, you don't approve of ZFS? :-)
>
It is not a panacaea.
The optimisation and sharing of r/w,
Load balancing,
And redundant data verifica
I already read that before I posted my question. Neither by this text,
nor by the one in the Wikipedia could I participate in the exitement
around ZFS. Ok, so it's a 128Bit FS. Big fat, hairy deal! I couldn't see
that's like 64-bit soundcards that have to be "better" than 32-bit, while
most of
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 21:38:49 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ZFS ends the microsotf monopoly over our disks.
And this monopoly is founded on ... what?
> ZFS begins the world as a 128bit dadaspace.
> Using ZFS fixes allocations and massaging your NAS.
> The inode is now the wenode.
> Usaging ZFS
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 21:11:21 +0100 Mel wrote:
> If you review the "Not done" items @ http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS and still
> are
> doubting, then http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/whatis/ describes
> what the features *can* be. I got a good impression from that text what the
> advanta
On 02/02/2008, Christian Baer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello people!
>
> Can anyone give me a link to a text on ZFS that tells me why I might want
> to use that instead of FFS? I don't want to start a discussion which is
> better, just a comparison, as I assume that the two are not designed to
If you review the "Not done" items @ http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS and still are
doubting, then http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/whatis/ describes
what the features *can* be. I got a good impression from that text what the
advantages are, but I'm too conservative to migrate myself. YMMV.
On Saturday 02 February 2008 20:07:50 Christian Baer wrote:
> Can anyone give me a link to a text on ZFS that tells me why I might want
> to use that instead of FFS? I don't want to start a discussion which is
> better, just a comparison, as I assume that the two are not designed to do
> the same
Hello people!
Can anyone give me a link to a text on ZFS that tells me why I might want
to use that instead of FFS? I don't want to start a discussion which is
better, just a comparison, as I assume that the two are not designed to do
the same things. And if possible one that is understandable to
13 matches
Mail list logo
