From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 1 15:19:14 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F85B1065670 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:19:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kudzu@tenebras.com) Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D048FC1A for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:19:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2so3336162pbb.13 for ; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=1ihgc1bquneV2UNiFU690XkU/KyByHTqHpHRsnly81w=; b=Iedjd5kU/PXNrgIo7cXHXAOgZO46OP21C4Ri4Ds8dIyArXUIR5s4t/JHK3W1GiVxiP sGj2sbyES88oVlYmcZVNYLNdM4867QuZAkJ1YF+g+WQX19hFjF+ycTukEvEJlxuLTktc 4jOeoDFsss+KTE4/LuOHbW3hkAoPLX8b+37+rIpKc4BuGzzVE+vkHunJiRM5E6lvhN5l /CXtVGuoNF2VBkKonHoidBFgeyPvmADFV/4i5fsBN5hOaTDq8UnkV/l/ePqB9V+GGNiy ggrBFT9lzg+Kb8a/Hsdaio8RooFbe0qyCiD5xjv/BSSRhWXgJxd370aeQjimczxuxF+k U7XA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.203.73 with SMTP id ko9mr11341890pbc.66.1338563953490; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.202.8 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:19:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120601163520.f130cdcd.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20120601163520.f130cdcd.freebsd@edvax.de> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:19:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: Michael Sierchio To: Polytropon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkwQ1IBXGcdNoB4gnt7TH4G5HPolU7Uuk3D7mnyGRO5g0xRnFjsVUjnPYRqJ9R6uPJwaehy Cc: Kaya Saman , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anyone using freebsd ZFS for large storage servers? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:19:14 -0000 On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Polytropon wrote: > I do _not_ want to try to claim a "ZFS inferiority due to > missing backups", but there may be occassions where (except > performance), low-level file system aspects of UFS might be > superior to using ZFS. If you have an operational need for offsite backups, that doesn't change no matter how much redundancy you have in a single location. Backups are still necessary. But when RAIDed, ZFS has features that make it superior to hardware RAID - copy-on-write, block deduplication, etc. Like UFS2, it supports snapshots - but a lot more of them. Another performance criterion that is important to me is mirror (or raidz) recovery - how long does mirror catch-up take when you replace a disk, and how badly does it degrade performance for other data operations? Software raid, esp. gmirror, tends to do poorly here. My experience is that ZFS raid share recovery had less of an impact. YMMV.