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
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. :-)
However.
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
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
/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
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
advantages
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 will
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 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 verification
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
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 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 do
12 matches
Mail list logo
