| 1 |
On Aug 26, 2013 5:06 AM, "Alan McKinnon" <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 18/08/2013 21:38, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On 2013-08-18 5:16 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> While we're on the topic, what's the obsession with having different |
| 6 |
> >> bits of the file hierarchy as different*mount points*? That harks back |
| 7 |
> >> to the days when the only way to have a chunk of fs space be different |
| 8 |
> >> was to have it as a separate physical thing and mount it. Nowadays we |
| 9 |
> >> have something better - ZFS. To me this makes so much more sense. I |
| 10 |
have |
| 11 |
> >> a large amount of storage called a pool, and set size limits and |
| 12 |
> >> characteristics for various directories without having to deal with |
| 13 |
> >> fixed size volumes. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Eh? *Who* has ZFS? Certainly not the linux kernel. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> FreeBSD |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> You can get ZFS on Linux with relative ease, you just have to build it |
| 21 |
> yourself. Distros feel they can't redistribute that code. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> The bit you quoted shouldn't be read to mean that we have ZFS, it works |
| 26 |
> on Linux and everyone should activate it and use it and chuck ext* out |
| 27 |
> the window. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I meant that we've been chugging along since 1982 or so with ancient |
| 30 |
> disk concepts that come mostly from MS_DOS and limited by that hardware |
| 31 |
> of that day. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> And here we are in 2013 *still* fiddling with partition tables, fixed |
| 34 |
> file systems, fixed mountpoints and we still bang our heads weekly |
| 35 |
> because sda3 has proven to be too small, and it's a *huge* mission to |
| 36 |
> change it. Yes, LVM has made this sooooo much easier (kudos to Sistina |
| 37 |
> for that) but I believe the entire approach is wrong. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> The ZFS approach is better - here's the storage, now do with it what I |
| 40 |
> want but don't employ arbitrary fixed limits and structures to do it. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
+1 on ZFS. It's honestly a truly *modern* filesystem. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Been using it as the storage back-end of my company's email server. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
The zpool and zfs command may need some time to be familiar with, but the |
| 48 |
self-mounting self-sharing ability of zfs (i.e., no need to muck with fstab |
| 49 |
and exports files) is really sweet. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I really leveraged its ability to do what I call "delta snapshot shipping" |
| 52 |
(i.e., send only the differences between two snapshots to another place). |
| 53 |
It's almost like an asynchronous DRBD, but with the added peace of mind |
| 54 |
that if the files become corrupted (due to buggy app, almost no way for ZFS |
| 55 |
to let corrupt data exist), I can easily 'roll back' to the time where the |
| 56 |
files are still uncorrupted. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Rgds, |
| 59 |
-- |
Archives