Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:03:16 -0500 From: "Alexandre \"Sunny\" Kovalenko" <alex.kovalenko@verizon.net> To: =?UTF-8?Q?=E9=9F=93=E5=AE=B6=E6=A8=99?= Bill Hacker <askbill@conducive.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS honesty Message-ID: <1199664196.899.10.camel@RabbitsDen> In-Reply-To: <47815D29.2000509@conducive.net> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org> <flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org> <47810DE3.3050106@FreeBSD.org> <flr3iq$of7$1@ger.gmane.org> <478119AB.8050906@FreeBSD.org> <47814160.4050401@samsco.org> <4781541D.6070500@conducive.net> <flrlib$j29$1@ger.gmane.org> <47815D29.2000509@conducive.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 22:58 +0000, 韓家標 Bill Hacker wrote: <snip> > None are perfect. But ZFS is just *too* new. And not just on *BSD. > If IBM had not already had GPFS, Sun might never even have 'invented' ZFS. Could you by any chance elaborate -- from the information available to me, I did not get an impression that ZFS is the cluster-aware filesystem or will ever be one. OTOH that's all GPFS is. > > The 'other' ones with the longest 'history' - where known-problems have knwon > avoidance/workaround, may well be XFS and JFS. Heavy-lifters iwht commercial > track-records, both. > > Not to mention UFS... > > I'm still in the practice of 'slicing' into 50 GB or so - 100GB max - no matter > *what* the drive size is. OT: As someone, who has ~10TB of compressed high-fidelity documents in production (AIX/JFS2), I can tell you that this approach will only take you so far ;) I am up to 800GB filesystems by now. > > So where's the 'beef'? > > Half-terabyte *files*? I surely hope not.. Not any better then 200 x 50GB filesystems ;) -- Alexandre "Sunny" Kovalenko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1199664196.899.10.camel>