Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:58:10 +0200 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_H=E4ggstr=F6m?=" <hagge.lists@intercorner.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD + ZFS on a production server? Message-ID: <1a5a68400806091158n17397a14k66d85e30ac3e1a46@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080609094333.H27092@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <1a5a68400806080604ped08ce8p120fc21107e7de81@mail.gmail.com> <20080608215648.Q9779@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20080608230131.00003da7@westmark> <20080609001010.G59013@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <g2hp91$jtp$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080608233315.GA33530@dan.emsphone.com> <20080609094333.H27092@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you all for discussing this with me. I really like to here your opinions. I wont answer to all of your posts, because half of them is off-topic, but still interesting to read. I haven't heard/read about any huge CPU consumptions from ZFS, not yet at least. If you have links to benchmarks and comparisons with other fses (UFS2 in particular) it would be grate! For the memory I've read that ZFS use up to approximately 700MB of ram for caching, which is quite much, but not too much compared to my 4GB that is available. However there doesn't seem to be an upper limit for ZFS, which I think is very bad. 2008/6/8 Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>: >> The choice is probably between "Debian 4.0r3", "FreeBSD 7.0" and >> "OpenSolaris 2008.05". All of them have their pros and cons. >> > > could you tell any pros for opensolaris? OpenSolaris 2008.05 didn't boot on my hardware, so it's out of this project anyway. The live-cd hangs on "device detect". One of the pros for OpenSolaris I've noticed is the support for a virtual host and at the same time able to use ZFS, but that doesn't matter anymore because I can not boot it and ZFS will probably eat my memory if I can set an upper limit. >> I think Debian / Linux, almost falls off because it lacks support for >> native ZFS and I have not found any alternative filesystem that offer >> checksums on the fly. > > agree I have now found a filesystem for linux that do checksum on the fly, btrfs. But it is still very experimental, so I wont try it for this project. http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/ // Anders
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1a5a68400806091158n17397a14k66d85e30ac3e1a46>