On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:49:48PM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > Steven Chamberlain <ste...@pyro.eu.org> writes: > > Wouldn't ZFS be a more natural way to do something like this? > Possibly, but I have zero hopes of getting it set up and supported by > DSA, so we can’t use it for this service.
Why do you say that when you haven't even asked? Significant issues for DSA are: - service owners saying "I need to unpack the entire archive and i need to search it fast so get more hardware like SSDs" or equivalent without understanding our constraints - service owners not engaging with us early in their implementation to understand what constraints we might need to impose or to sound us out on architecture to improve performance or to reduce resource usage or to reduce software complexity We are much more amenable to "how could I improve X so that it can run faster" than we are to "zero hopes that DSA will support it". Disparaging us certainly does not draw bees to honey, as they say. To address this specific thread, the challenge with ZFS is not that we don't like the idea (I'm keen on it, actually) but that it's not in the Linux kernel. We prefer to use stock Debian kernels than custom-built kernels or modules for our machines. If we can overcome these challenges for ZFS (which are significant, I admit), we would be amenable to a discussion regarding ZFS (although it isn't a great match to our current hardware configuration). Is there another filesystem (or another approach) that would improve performance? Are there other things we could consider (hdfs & solr, say)? You know where we live, Luca -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130830221425.ga19...@emyr.net
