Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:32:37 +0000 From: =?UTF-8?B?6Z+T5a625qiZIEJpbGwgSGFja2Vy?= <askbill@conducive.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS honesty Message-ID: <47815705.1010006@conducive.net> In-Reply-To: <47814E20.70801@samsco.org> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org> <flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org> <47810DE3.3050106@FreeBSD.org> <flr3iq$of7$1@ger.gmane.org> <478119AB.8050906@FreeBSD.org> <47814160.4050401@samsco.org> <478148FD.20605@FreeBSD.org> <47814E20.70801@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scott Long wrote: *trimmed* > > I guess what makes me mad about ZFS is that it's all-or-nothing; either > it works, or it crashes. It doesn't automatically recognize limits and > make adjustments or sacrifices when it reaches those limits, it just > crashes. Wanting multiple gigabytes of RAM for caching in order to > optimize performance is great, but crashing when it doesn't get those > multiple gigabytes of RAM is not so great, and it leaves a bad taste in > my mouth about ZFS in general. > > Scott To be fair - every fs on the planet had to go through this at one time or another. We have been perhaps 'spoiled' by the odd runaway log or such that has pushed UFS to over 103% 'full', struggled on regardless, allowing us to ssh in from 12,000 miles away, kill the offender, clean up the mess, and soldier-on w/o even a reboot, let alone a crash. ZFS will (probably) get there one day as well. But at present, it has become a distraction we don't need. We're chasing promises... I'd happily trade all future interest in ZFS for better ufs, nfs, smbfs, ntfs, xfs, jfs, et al performance/safety/compatibility, ... if only 'coz that's where the bulk of the data we need to 'talk to' actually resides - not on ZFS or GPFS. Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47815705.1010006>