Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:53:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Eldredge <neldredge@math.ucsd.edu> To: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS boot Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0810111349540.16737@zeno.ucsd.edu> In-Reply-To: <b269bc570810111337l4a8f9fc9yfc6f5959d7c971fd@mail.gmail.com> References: <E1KoeVm-000ELP-4b@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> <200810111810.m9BIAGPw059975@apollo.backplane.com> <b269bc570810111337l4a8f9fc9yfc6f5959d7c971fd@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Freddie Cash wrote: > On 10/11/08, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> wrote: >> With regards to the traditional BSD partitioning scheme, having a >> separate /usr, /home, /tmp, etc... there's no reason to do that stuff >> any more with ZFS (or HAMMER). > > As separate partitions, no. As separate filesystems, definitely. > > While HAMMER PFSes may not support these things yet, ZFS allows you to > tailor each filesystem to its purpose. For example, you can enable > compression on /usr/ports, but have a separate /usr/ports/distfilles > and /usr/ports/work that aren't compressed. Or /usr/src compressed > and /usr/obj not. Have a small record (block) size for /usr/src, but > a larger one for /home. Give each user a separate filesystem for > their /home/<username>, with separate snapshot policies, quotas, and > reservations (initial filesystem size). All this about ZFS sounds great, and I'd like to try it out, but some of the bugs, etc, listed at http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSKnownProblems are rather alarming. Even on a personal machine, I don't want these features at the cost of an unstable system. Is that list still current? FWIW, my system is amd64 with 1 G of memory, which the page implies is insufficient. Is it really? -- Nate Eldredge neldredge@math.ucsd.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0810111349540.16737>