On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Needing fsck because the drive is failing and not able to store and
retrieve data reliably any more is a whole different thing.
or bad data stored because of non-disk errors.
in this case any
On 09/08/2012 16:09, Matthias Gamsjager wrote:
Beside in production one should run with ECC memory to eliminate
the possibility of incorrect data from memory
ECC doesn't detect all memory errors.
--
Bruce Cran
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Of course ZFS doesn't need fsck. Until it fails.
Did you personally try ZFS ?
of course.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On 07/08/2012 22:09, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Of course ZFS doesn't need fsck. Until it fails.
It doesn't need fsck for the normal case of filesystem corruption due to
system crashes: in that case, you stand to lose maybe the last one or
two IO transactions that hadn't made it onto the disk yet,
Needing fsck because the drive is failing and not able to store and
retrieve data reliably any more is a whole different thing.
or bad data stored because of non-disk errors.
least will discover that this is happening due to the built-in
checksumming and avoid many instances of silent
El 05/08/12 18:10, Wojciech Puchar escribió:
really - stick with FreeBSD UFS. it is really best.
Yes UFS is very good, but very hight IO ZFS is fastest if you use
L2ARC/ZIL on SSD.
if...
better just move heavy used things on SSD and rest on HDD. really it's
fastest.
Yes, you can do
El 05/08/12 20:05, Anonymous Remailer (austria) escribió:
I think that XFS JFS are more mature filesystems than ZFS
This is not up for discussion.
but the feature set of ZFS i ahead in the future.
Too many iPads, iPhones, etc?
For a NFS server first I'll go with ZFS because the
El 05/08/12 18:13, Wojciech Puchar escribió:
with ZFS because the consistence in disk and speed will gonna be
the differentiator.
true. it is consistently slow.
REALLY from what tale do you people get such a statements.
There is no tale, only a feature set:
English is not my native language, so i can make mistakes. ZFS is the way to
go if you need consistency + speed on a NFS server/service.
Of course ZFS doesn't need fsck. Until it fails.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
El 07/08/12 16:09, Wojciech Puchar escribió:
English is not my native language, so i can make mistakes. ZFS is the
way to go if you need consistency + speed on a NFS server/service.
Of course ZFS doesn't need fsck. Until it fails.
Did you personally try ZFS ?
Hi Ashkan,
I think that XFS JFS are more mature filesystems than ZFS, but the feature
set of ZFS i ahead in the future. For a NFS server first I'll go with ZFS
because the consistence in disk and speed will gonna be the differentiator.
true. it is consistently slow.
REALLY from what tale do
i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided.
i want to share it on network via nfs.
which file system is better for it?
thank you
badly imprecise question. you may share any filesystem.
Not sure what you want to achieve. No explanation of raided - this means
nothing without precise description.
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 03:46:53PM -0500, Marco Muskus wrote:
Hi Ashkan,
I think that XFS JFS are more mature filesystems than ZFS, but the
feature set of ZFS i ahead in the future. For a NFS server first
I'll go with ZFS because the consistence in disk and speed will
gonna be the
I think that XFS JFS are more mature filesystems than ZFS, but the
feature set of ZFS i ahead in the future. For a NFS server first
I'll go with ZFS because the consistence in disk and speed will
gonna be the differentiator.
The idea that ZFS is faster than XFS is certainly a new one for me.
El 05/08/12 06:22, Wojciech Puchar escribió:
Hi Ashkan,
I think that XFS JFS are more mature filesystems than ZFS, but the
feature set of ZFS i ahead in the future. For a NFS server first I'll
go with ZFS because the consistence in disk and speed will gonna be
the differentiator.
true. it
El 05/08/12 13:03, Wojciech Puchar escribió:
I think that XFS JFS are more mature filesystems than ZFS, but the
feature set of ZFS i ahead in the future. For a NFS server first
I'll go with ZFS because the consistence in disk and speed will
gonna be the differentiator.
The idea that ZFS is
really - stick with FreeBSD UFS. it is really best.
Yes UFS is very good, but very hight IO ZFS is fastest if you use L2ARC/ZIL
on SSD.
if...
better just move heavy used things on SSD and rest on HDD. really it's
fastest.
___
with ZFS because the consistence in disk and speed will gonna be the
differentiator.
true. it is consistently slow.
REALLY from what tale do you people get such a statements.
There is no tale, only a feature set:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfs#Features
And everything everyone writes is
I think that XFS JFS are more mature filesystems than ZFS
This is not up for discussion.
but the feature set of ZFS i ahead in the future.
Too many iPads, iPhones, etc?
For a NFS server first I'll go with ZFS because the consistence in disk
If not spelling, or grammar...
and speed
--As of August 5, 2012 10:29:16 AM -0600, Chad Perrin is alleged to have
said:
I think that XFS JFS are more mature filesystems than ZFS, but the
feature set of ZFS i ahead in the future. For a NFS server first
I'll go with ZFS because the consistence in disk and speed will
gonna be the
hello
i have 16tb storage. 8x2tb sata raided.
i want to share it on network via nfs.
which file system is better for it?
thank you
———
Ashkan R
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To
Hi Ashkan,
I think that XFS JFS are more mature filesystems than ZFS, but the
feature set of ZFS i ahead in the future. For a NFS server first I'll go
with ZFS because the consistence in disk and speed will gonna be the
differentiator.
Look at L2ARC and ZIL to improve ZFS speed.
Regards,
22 matches
Mail list logo
