Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:17:42 -0500 From: Dan <dan-freebsd-fs@ourbrains.org> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will XFS be adopted Message-ID: <20081119001742.GA21835@ourbrains.org> In-Reply-To: <20081118175210.GA3753@hyperion.scode.org> References: <20081109174303.GA5146@ourbrains.org> <20081109184349.GG51239@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4920D879.3070806@jrv.org> <20081117050441.GA16855@ourbrains.org> <20081118175210.GA3753@hyperion.scode.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Schuller(peter.schuller@infidyne.com)@2008.11.18 18:52:10 +0100: > However, the implication when people say that ZFS "wastes" a bunch of > memory, seems to be that it somehow just uses up a bunch of memory for > no good reason other than some kind of bloat. This is not the case. Has anyone done any bechmarks? Is the cache really helping that much? If it doesn't, and it performs similarly to other journaling FSes that do not use this much RAM, well, if it's not waste then what? Does it guarantee the same atomicity that UFS does? Is it OK to run an email server on it? Will I lose messages in cases of powerfail/crash?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081119001742.GA21835>