Roland Mainz wrote:
John Sonnenschein wrote:
[...]
For example if we were to do a ZFS snapshot prior to upgrading or
installing a package, that feature is obviously not available with
other filesystems, but we shouldn't restrict ourselves to not doing it
just because UFS is braindead technology
Erm, not that I was talking about _QFS_, not UFS...and QFS is in some
aspects even superiour to ZFS. IMO a stragegy which includes both
filesystems (ZFS+QFS) may be better than focussing on ZFS alone,
otherwise the weaker points of ZFS like high memory consumption
(remember embedded systems with restricted memory, a LiveCD or older
machines), bad NFS performance, additional CPU usage for
checksums+metadata compression or the lack of user quotas may quickly
become the archilles heel of the whole indiana project.
ZFS is unsuitable for a LiveCD. In fact for a LiveCD all that is
required is a minimal,
ramdisk based R/W filesystem and a CDROM filesystem. For that matter
even UFS
is a bit heavyweight for a ramdisk based filesystem.
In case of compression, when we are talking about CPU usage/vs real
disk I/O,
lightweight compression, a.k.a lzjb in ZFS is almost always a perf
win as the
overhead of decompression is offset by the savings in disk I/O. This
may not be
true for more compute intensive compression schemes like ZIP, esp.
when we
are also dealing with very fast disks.
Regards,
Moinak.
----
Bye,
Roland
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
