Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
Le 02/12/2008 à 22:58:28+0100, Wojciech Puchar a écrit To come back to FreeBSD, I'm using FreeBSD since 10 years, UFS is very slow, and when UFS2 is release I'm very happy to switch to UFS2. simply turn on softupdates and turn off atime Yes I known that. But event that UFS2 UFS1 (hopefully ;-) ) It's especially true on squid server. Regards. -- Albert SHIH SIO batiment 15 Observatoire de Paris Meudon 5 Place Jules Janssen 92195 Meudon Cedex Heure local/Local time: Mer 3 déc 2008 09:55:39 CET ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
What about DragonFlyBSD's new HAMMER FS? I hear it has similar capabilities as ZFS without the overhead. Though, strangely, I haven't really heard anyone discuss it even though it was released some months ago. it's maybe pre-pre-prerelease. it's not finished yet. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
2008/12/2 Nathan Lay [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What about DragonFlyBSD's new HAMMER FS? I hear it has similar capabilities as ZFS without the overhead. Though, strangely, I haven't really heard anyone discuss it even though it was released some months ago. Well, that's because it doesn't :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
Wojciech Puchar([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.12.02 11:09:53 +0100: What about DragonFlyBSD's new HAMMER FS? I hear it has similar capabilities as ZFS without the overhead. Though, strangely, I haven't really heard anyone discuss it even though it was released some months ago. it's maybe pre-pre-prerelease. it's not finished yet. It's already usable on DragonFly. DragonFLY itself is stable, but only supports one CPUIt probably will never be ported to FreeBSD due to API differences. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
It's already usable on DragonFly. DragonFLY itself is stable, but only supports one CPUIt probably will never be ported to FreeBSD due to API differences. time to wait and see if they will really make dragonfly faster than FreeBSD (it's their goal)... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
Wojciech Puchar wrote: It's already usable on DragonFly. DragonFLY itself is stable, but only supports one CPUIt probably will never be ported to FreeBSD due to API differences. time to wait and see if they will really make dragonfly faster than FreeBSD (it's their goal)... http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/dfly.html Good luck to them, they need it :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
Wojciech Puchar wrote: What about DragonFlyBSD's new HAMMER FS? I hear it has similar capabilities as ZFS without the overhead. Though, strangely, I haven't really heard anyone discuss it even though it was released some months ago. it's maybe pre-pre-prerelease. it's not finished yet. I don't think HAMMER intends to implement a significant portion of ZFS's features. In particular, IIRC Matt specifically said he won't do anything about volume management (the data storage / RAID layer of ZFS) which among many other things means no ad-hoc file system creation. Also, HAMMER needs to be vacuumed periodically by design (the reason for this seems to me similar to that of pgsql) which isn't a particularly nice design. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
I don't think HAMMER intends to implement a significant portion of ZFS's it intends to implement what's needed. anyway - lets wait when it will be really finished ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
time to wait and see if they will really make dragonfly faster than FreeBSD (it's their goal)... http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/dfly.html Good luck to them, they need it :) indeed:) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
Ivan Voras([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.12.02 20:00:46 +0100: Wojciech Puchar wrote: It's already usable on DragonFly. DragonFLY itself is stable, but only supports one CPUIt probably will never be ported to FreeBSD due to API differences. time to wait and see if they will really make dragonfly faster than FreeBSD (it's their goal)... http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/dfly.html Good luck to them, they need it :) That's a stupid benchmark. DragonFly doesn't have SMP support yet. As already mentioned, they don't have SMP yet. Scalable SMP is the ultimate goal though, and once they get rid of giant lock, the SMP won't take that long. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
That's a stupid benchmark. DragonFly doesn't have SMP support yet. my benchmark is to start it install programs i use commonly and compare it to other system. on single-core machine i tested FreeBSD is faster. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
time to wait and see if they will really make dragonfly faster than FreeBSD (it's their goal)... http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/dfly.html Good luck to them, they need it :) That's a stupid benchmark. DragonFly doesn't have SMP support yet. So? Look at just the UP scores then. From the above page: UP performance on FreeBSD 7 is 2.6 times higher than dragonfly UP performance and 1.8 times higher than freebsd 4 UP performance. Please explain how DragonFly's lack of SMP affects the UP performance? Also, from an end user perspective, you can hardly get a computer these days that only has one core. SMP performance is very relevant from that perspective. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
Le 01/12/2008 à 09:59:15-0600, Kirk Strauser a écrit I have ZFS on my 7.1-PRERELEASE system, and while it does some spiffy things, in general I'm a bit underwhelmed. PROS: Adding new filesystems on a whim is really nice. It has a lot of really cool other features that I will probably never need. CONS: I have nearly 3GB of wired RAM, but it doesn't seem to be all that fast. For example, starting an Amanda backup on a UFS2 filesystem would get through the estimate phase almost instantly on a system that had been up for several days because of cached filesystem data. On ZFS, it still limps along even if I just finished the last backup a few minutes earlier. Other than saying I'm using ZFS, I don't seem to have much to show for it. WTF: Raidz and top-level vdevs cannot be removed from a pool. At this point, I'm almost ready to go back to good ol' UFS2, but I'd hate to give up that easy addition of new filesystems. I *could* have a single 700GB root FS but that just doesn't seem right. Are there any good, tested GEOM- based ways of getting that functionality, perhaps along the lines of using something like gvirstor and growfs as needed? Maybe my message is little in the wrong mailing-list I'm have choosing ZFSunder Solaris because for some special purpose I need a big space (~30To). So I've two Sun X4500 with Solaris x86-64 After one year I can say ZFS is fantastic file system for (IMHO) those reason : Don't have fsck (for 30To is very very useful) Snapshots is instantly make. You can put any number files in on directory (of course depend you context but it's useful for me) Very very rock solid. For the last item, I can say that because they are «big» bug in the kernel of Solaris when I start to using it. The effect is the server ... reboot when it's heavy load on SATA controller. So I've many reboot (~30) in very short time. Event that I never lost any bits of information on my FS. To come back to FreeBSD, I'm using FreeBSD since 10 years, UFS is very slow, and when UFS2 is release I'm very happy to switch to UFS2. Now FreeBSD have ZFS, and I'm using it inmy scracth because I don't really need ZFS on my server when they are ~ 100-1024Go disk. I'm using ZFS only on my personnal computer (more because to make test and send bug reports than because I'm really use ZFS) Of course when ZFS is fully integrated and very solid under FreeBSD, I'm going to very happy and use it. But at this moment for production and for «small» FS I'm not really need ZFS. I think ZFS become indispensable when the FS continue to growing ... a fsck on 4 To is very very long. When ZFS is stable ZFS UFS2 ext3 UFS1 at this moment UFS2 ZFS ext3 UFS1 Regards. -- Albert SHIH SIO batiment 15 Observatoire de Paris Meudon 5 Place Jules Janssen 92195 Meudon Cedex Téléphone : 01 45 07 76 26 Heure local/Local time: Mar 2 déc 2008 22:25:20 CET ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
performance and 1.8 times higher than freebsd 4 UP performance. Please explain how DragonFly's lack of SMP affects the UP performance? doesn't affect of course. yes dragonflybsd is slower. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
To come back to FreeBSD, I'm using FreeBSD since 10 years, UFS is very slow, and when UFS2 is release I'm very happy to switch to UFS2. simply turn on softupdates and turn off atime ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
Wojciech Puchar([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.12.02 22:14:55 +0100: That's a stupid benchmark. DragonFly doesn't have SMP support yet. my benchmark is to start it install programs i use commonly and compare it to other system. on single-core machine i tested FreeBSD is faster. Good things come to those who wait. IMO the best thing about DragonFly is what and how you can build on top of it. Compared to other BSDs it has a rewritten kernel, and this work continues. It will be much easier to build clustering on top of this kernel. HAMMER already supports replication, and from following this list I know some people want this feature like yesterday. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
Peter Giessel([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.12.02 12:22:09 -0900: Please explain how DragonFly's lack of SMP affects the UP performance? Also, from an end user perspective, you can hardly get a computer these days that only has one core. SMP performance is very relevant from that perspective. So it is slower now, but it's just a matter of resources. Once someone takes on the SMP it will get there. DragonFly is a small project vs. FreeBSD. It needs developers. Also FreeBSD doesn't seem to care for clustering. While significant work has been done in DragonFly to build single image clustering on top. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
I have ZFS on my 7.1-PRERELEASE system, and while it does some spiffy things, in general I'm a bit underwhelmed. PROS: Adding new filesystems on a whim is really nice. It has a lot of really cool other features that I will probably never need. CONS: I have nearly 3GB of wired RAM, but it doesn't seem to be all that fast. For example, starting an Amanda backup on a UFS2 filesystem would get through the estimate phase almost instantly on a system that had been up for several days because of cached filesystem data. On ZFS, it still limps along even if I just finished the last backup a few minutes earlier. Other than saying I'm using ZFS, I don't seem to have much to show for it. WTF: Raidz and top-level vdevs cannot be removed from a pool. At this point, I'm almost ready to go back to good ol' UFS2, but I'd hate to give up that easy addition of new filesystems. I *could* have a single 700GB root FS but that just doesn't seem right. Are there any good, tested GEOM- based ways of getting that functionality, perhaps along the lines of using something like gvirstor and growfs as needed? - Kirk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
I have ZFS on my 7.1-PRERELEASE system, and while it does some spiffy things, in general I'm a bit underwhelmed. UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have lots of filesystems. why don't just make one or one per disk? i have one per disk/mirror configuration everywhere except one place where i made separate filesystem for /var/spool/squid for some reasons. tell me what's your needs and how many/what disks you have. UFS is best-performer on real load, runs on almost no RAM, but uses more if available for caching. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
On Monday 01 December 2008 11:49:46 Wojciech Puchar wrote: UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have lots of filesystems. why don't just make one or one per disk? For all the usual reasons: faster fsck, ability to set attributes on each filesystem (noexec, noatime, ro), a runaway process writing to /tmp won't cause problems in /var, etc. A big local reason is that Amanda is much easier to configure when you're using a bunch of filesystems because it runs tar with --one-file-system set. If /var is separate from / and I want to back them up separately, I just tell Amanda to dump / and /var. If /var is part of / then I have to say dump / except for /var (and /tmp and /usr and ...). i have one per disk/mirror configuration everywhere except one place where i made separate filesystem for /var/spool/squid for some reasons. Oh, there are definitely advantages to that setup. It just complicates certain admin functions (see above). With something like ZFS that makes creating new filesystems trivially easy, they're nice to use. tell me what's your needs and how many/what disks you have. Right now I have a 750GB (with another on order) and a 320GB. The box is a multi-purpose home server with mail, several websites, and a bunch of local file streaming (from MP3 and ripped DVDs to Apple's Time Machine storage). UFS is best-performer on real load, runs on almost no RAM, but uses more if available for caching. That's my main beef with ZFS at the moment. I don't mind if it uses a lot of RAM - that's what I bought it for! - but that it doesn't seem to use it effectively (at least on my workload). - Kirk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have ZFS on my 7.1-PRERELEASE system, and while it does some spiffy things, in general I'm a bit underwhelmed. PROS: Adding new filesystems on a whim is really nice. yes it is. It has a lot of really cool other features that I will probably never need. then you don't need ZFS. usually you choose a technology because you need it. if you don't need it then you don't use it. pure simple. CONS: I have nearly 3GB of wired RAM, but it doesn't seem to be all that fast. For example, starting an Amanda backup on a UFS2 filesystem would get through the estimate phase almost instantly on a system that had been up for several days because of cached filesystem data. On ZFS, it still limps along even if I just finished the last backup a few minutes earlier. it's all about compromises. uses lots of ram *but* gives you the ability to add new filesystems on the run. and after all it's all about choices. v Other than saying I'm using ZFS, I don't seem to have much to show for it. WTF: Raidz and top-level vdevs cannot be removed from a pool. At this point, I'm almost ready to go back to good ol' UFS2, but I'd hate to give up that easy addition of new filesystems. I *could* have a single 700GB root FS but that just doesn't seem right. Are there any good, tested GEOM- based ways of getting that functionality, perhaps along the lines of using something like gvirstor and growfs as needed? - Kirk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
On Monday 01 December 2008 13:24:48 Valentin Bud wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It has a lot of really cool other features that I will probably never need. then you don't need ZFS. usually you choose a technology because you need it. if you don't need it then you don't use it. pure simple. Well, there are always external considerations: when my boss asks me about it, it'll be nice to have personal experience. I deploy a lot of stuff at home with an eye toward trying it at work down the road. - Kirk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
Kirk Strauser wrote: At this point, I'm almost ready to go back to good ol' UFS2, but I'd hate to give up that easy addition of new filesystems. I *could* have a single 700GB root FS but that just doesn't seem right. Are there any good, tested GEOM- based ways of getting that functionality, perhaps along the lines of using something like gvirstor and growfs as needed? There's nothing as convenient as ZFS (really... anywhere) :( . I'm still hoping someone will sponsor development or porting of a widely used journalling file system like XFS, JFS, even ext3/4 to FreeBSD, but in the meantime UFS2+SU isn't that bad. Practically the only way to break it is if you have hardware errors that end up corrupting file system data. The need to run full fsck occasionally (as opposed to the softupdates-assisted one) is annoying but 700 GB should be manageable with 3-4 GB of memory. The softupdates-assisted fsck actually works very well in all but the heaviest loads (i.e. when the server is swamped by requests immediately after booting). You could also try gjournal but benchmark and test it first for your workload. gvirstor is a theoretically good option if you need its specific functionality, only be doubly sure to benchmark it for your specific workload as it has some /unusual/ performance characteristics. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have lots of filesystems. why don't just make one or one per disk? For all the usual reasons: faster fsck, ability to set attributes on each filesystem (noexec, noatime, ro), a runaway process writing to /tmp won't cause problems in /var, etc. i don't have such problems, ordinary users have quotas... (one as there's one filesystem). A big local reason is that Amanda is much easier to configure when you're using a bunch of filesystems because it runs tar with --one-file-system set. If /var is separate from / and I want to back them up separately, I just tell Amanda to dump / and /var. If /var is part of / then I have to say dump / except for /var (and /tmp and /usr and ...). what i problem to do this? tell me what's your needs and how many/what disks you have. Right now I have a 750GB (with another on order) and a 320GB. The box is a multi-purpose home server with mail, several websites, and a bunch of local file streaming (from MP3 and ripped DVDs to Apple's Time Machine storage). so make system and userdata except huge files on 320GB, and make gstripe of 750GB disks to store huge files. two filesystems. UFS is best-performer on real load, runs on almost no RAM, but uses more if available for caching. That's my main beef with ZFS at the moment. I don't mind if it uses a lot of RAM - that's what I bought it for! - but that it doesn't seem to use it effectively (at least on my workload). it simply wastes RAM and CPU power. same thing takes 10-20 times more CPU that with UFS, where CPU load is close to unnoticable. even if it has some features you may consider nice, it's not worth using bloatware. Bloatware should be ALWAYS avoided no matter how fast your hardware is and how much RAM do you have. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:26:04 +0100 (CET) Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it simply wastes RAM and CPU power. same thing takes 10-20 times more CPU that with UFS ZFS does things that UFS is not capable of. These (bloathware) things cost memory indeed. But that memory is certainly not wasted. I also know you cannot be convinced, because you lowe ZFS. even if it has some features you may consider nice, it's not worth using bloatware. Bloatware should be ALWAYS avoided no matter how fast your hardware is and how much RAM do you have. True, except ZFS is a big winner and no bloatware. And although you are pretty stubborn in this matter, I still say this ;-) ZFS is here to stay. Given the fact it's not quite mature (yet); it is still under heavy development, but it is also stable enough for rock solid Solaris 10 servers with ZFS. (and NO, this is not all on Sun hardware). I for one will never go back to filesystems like UFS/UFS2. My data is quite safe on ZFS; my systems are fast; backups are a snap with snapshots; the list of PROs is long, very long (and all this for a still young filesystem...) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce snv103 ++ + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:21 PM, Kirk Strauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 01 December 2008 11:49:46 Wojciech Puchar wrote: UFS is excellent. your problem is that you like to have lots of filesystems. why don't just make one or one per disk? For all the usual reasons: faster fsck, ability to set attributes on each filesystem (noexec, noatime, ro), a runaway process writing to /tmp won't cause problems in /var, etc. A big local reason is that Amanda is much easier to configure when you're using a bunch of filesystems because it runs tar with --one-file-system set. If /var is separate from / and I want to back them up separately, I just tell Amanda to dump / and /var. If /var is part of / then I have to say dump / except for /var (and /tmp and /usr and ...). Why don't you use the ZFS backup tools: snapshots, zfs send | receive (this in case you have a second box with zfs) or zfs send | [ tar | gzip | bzip ] to compress the snapshot and do whatever you want with it. The snapshots backup file system (data sets) and it's ultra fast: # du -h /home/user 20G/home/user # time zfs snapshot tank/home/[EMAIL PROTECTED] zfs snapshot tank/home/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.00s user 0.00s system 0% cpu 0.855 total Now the compression will take a little more but you get the idea. a great day, v i have one per disk/mirror configuration everywhere except one place where i made separate filesystem for /var/spool/squid for some reasons. Oh, there are definitely advantages to that setup. It just complicates certain admin functions (see above). With something like ZFS that makes creating new filesystems trivially easy, they're nice to use. tell me what's your needs and how many/what disks you have. Right now I have a 750GB (with another on order) and a 320GB. The box is a multi-purpose home server with mail, several websites, and a bunch of local file streaming (from MP3 and ripped DVDs to Apple's Time Machine storage). UFS is best-performer on real load, runs on almost no RAM, but uses more if available for caching. That's my main beef with ZFS at the moment. I don't mind if it uses a lot of RAM - that's what I bought it for! - but that it doesn't seem to use it effectively (at least on my workload). - Kirk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Disenchanted with ZFS; alternatives?
Ivan Voras wrote: Kirk Strauser wrote: At this point, I'm almost ready to go back to good ol' UFS2, but I'd hate to give up that easy addition of new filesystems. I *could* have a single 700GB root FS but that just doesn't seem right. Are there any good, tested GEOM- based ways of getting that functionality, perhaps along the lines of using something like gvirstor and growfs as needed? There's nothing as convenient as ZFS (really... anywhere) :( . I'm still hoping someone will sponsor development or porting of a widely used journalling file system like XFS, JFS, even ext3/4 to FreeBSD, but in the meantime UFS2+SU isn't that bad. Practically the only way to break it is if you have hardware errors that end up corrupting file system data. The need to run full fsck occasionally (as opposed to the softupdates-assisted one) is annoying but 700 GB should be manageable with 3-4 GB of memory. The softupdates-assisted fsck actually works very well in all but the heaviest loads (i.e. when the server is swamped by requests immediately after booting). You could also try gjournal but benchmark and test it first for your workload. gvirstor is a theoretically good option if you need its specific functionality, only be doubly sure to benchmark it for your specific workload as it has some /unusual/ performance characteristics. What about DragonFlyBSD's new HAMMER FS? I hear it has similar capabilities as ZFS without the overhead. Though, strangely, I haven't really heard anyone discuss it even though it was released some months ago. Best Regards, Nathan Lay ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
