| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 5 |
> why? zfs is slow and is mixing things that should be in different layers. One |
| 6 |
> argument against reiser4 always was 'it violates the layering' - well this is |
| 7 |
> even more true for zfs. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
If you can suggest a filesystem that has full redundancy and uses all my |
| 11 |
disk space optimally I'll be happy to use it. :) Ideally I'd prefer |
| 12 |
not to have to carefully map and partition my drives and be able to add |
| 13 |
space on a whim, but maybe that is asking too much. But ZFS allows all |
| 14 |
of this. RAID5 does not. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In theory ZFS also has much better write performance than RAID5 - |
| 17 |
because it doesn't need to read stripe before writing them most of the time. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sure, it is a layering violation, but there really isn't any way to |
| 20 |
implement this sort of scheme using layers. If you separate the raid |
| 21 |
layer from the FS layer then the raid has no idea whether a given block |
| 22 |
of disk is safe to overwrite or not - so it has to read stripes before |
| 23 |
writing them. So, while I do like the flexibility of running any |
| 24 |
filesystem on top of any lvm/md scheme I'll live with the inflexibility |
| 25 |
if it gives me more capability. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
As far as performance goes - ZFS is pretty immature - I'm sure it will |
| 28 |
only improve. Especially considering it only has the most minimal |
| 29 |
support for linux right now. Obviously I'd wait until something more |
| 30 |
robust is available... |
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) |
| 33 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iD8DBQFG9U+YG4/rWKZmVWkRAhM/AKC7oL99LD6rVBYWZT8FKX+3TfLGfQCgkToP |
| 36 |
JO0yxcMT1ptvRbhN35GxNvk= |
| 37 |
=Srvy |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives