UFS+J panics on HEAD

[Matthew Seaman]

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.

Even so, ZFS is certainly my personal default nowadays.  On a machine of
any size, the question is not "should I use ZFS?" but "are there any
good reasons why I shouldn't use ZFS? (And if so, what could I do to
make it possible to use ZFS anyhow...)"

With Andriy's recent patches to zfsboot to extend support for Boot
Environments, it's all starting to look particularly sexy.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 267 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20120524/ae44d522/signature.pgp