Re: UFS+J panics on HEAD

看板FB_current作者時間13年前 (2012/06/03 18:32), 編輯推噓0(000)
留言0則, 0人參與, 最新討論串14/14 (看更多)
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:58:52PM +0200, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 24/05/2012 00:05, Mark Linimon wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:58:48PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > >> > While it might be a shame to see FFS go by the wayside are there any > >> > big reasons why you would rather stick with FFS instead of moving > >> > to ZFS with all the benefits that brings? > > > - ZFS eats bytes for breakfast. It is completely inappropriate > > for anything with less than 4GB RAM. > > > > - ZFS performs poorly under disk-nearly-full conditions. > > - ZFS is not optimal for situations where there are a lot of small, > randomly dispersed IOs around the disk space. Like in any sort of > RDBMS. This is very true for reads, not for writes because it is a COW filesystem so writes are usually sequencial disk-wise. -- Jeremie Le Hen Men are born free and equal. Later on, they're on their own. Jean Yanne _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
文章代碼(AID): #1FopqmLq (FB_current)
討論串 (同標題文章)
文章代碼(AID): #1FopqmLq (FB_current)