1 |
On 26/08/2013 08:10, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
2 |
>> The ZFS approach is better - here's the storage, now do with it what I |
3 |
>> want but don't employ arbitrary fixed limits and structures to do it. |
4 |
>> |
5 |
> |
6 |
> +1 on ZFS. It's honestly a truly *modern* filesystem. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Been using it as the storage back-end of my company's email server. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> The zpool and zfs command may need some time to be familiar with, but |
11 |
> the self-mounting self-sharing ability of zfs (i.e., no need to muck |
12 |
> with fstab and exports files) is really sweet. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I really leveraged its ability to do what I call "delta snapshot |
15 |
> shipping" (i.e., send only the differences between two snapshots to |
16 |
> another place). It's almost like an asynchronous DRBD, but with the |
17 |
> added peace of mind that if the files become corrupted (due to buggy |
18 |
> app, almost no way for ZFS to let corrupt data exist), I can easily |
19 |
> 'roll back' to the time where the files are still uncorrupted. |
20 |
> |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
I run it on my NASes, and the thing that really sold me was what it lets |
24 |
me as the admin do: |
25 |
|
26 |
I get all the benefits of directories with none of the downsides. |
27 |
I get all the benefits of mount points with none of the downsides. |
28 |
I get all the benefits of discrete filesystems with none of the downsides. |
29 |
|
30 |
Like you say, a truly modern fs built for modern needs. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Alan McKinnon |
36 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |