We have a couple here, too Josh. Now you have to explain why you’re endorsing ZFS, given that “the community” trashed talked my suggestion that running ZFS instead of nano on a SSD (or even USB3 memstick) was, potentially a *much* more durable (and more performant) result. (*)
When you’re done, explain the difference between the cylinder write patterns on NTFS and UFS (which is what anyone performing a “full install” would likely prefer today). Then (and this should be easy) explain the difference between either of these filesystems and the things that make ZFS so different, including de-duplication, the “thou shalt never write a block in-place” rule that pervades the entire filesystem design, and the log-based structure that ZFS uses for the ZIL. Things will get outrageous soon with the advent of M.2 PCI SSDs on a x4 connection. But hey, it’s always possible that I don’t know WTF I’m talking about. — The LIzzard (*) it’s not in 2.2 because I’m trying to make 2.2 happen in 2014. > On Oct 30, 2014, at 6:13 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@spitwspots.com> wrote: > > Every data I've seen on "them sucking" has to do specifically with NTFS, > which the newly released firmware update is supposed to fix. > > We are using 840Evo's in all of our storage arrays, and haven't seen any > issues (EXT4/ZFS). > Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer > SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com/>On 10/30/2014 > 07:33 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> >>> On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Jeppe Øland <jol...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:jol...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> 3 year old Kingston SSDs are not like new Kingston SSDs. >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> On the other hand, I tend to distrust manufacturers that shipped >>> completely unreliable drives without any thought. >>> Kingston/OCZ/Crucial are all in this boat for me. >> >> I’m sure I’ve been burned at least as badly by these, and others, and I >> still buy from them. >> >> Samsung 840s are the darling of the “cheap, fast SSD” and they turn out to >> suck, too: >> http://www.pcper.com/news/Storage/Samsung-Germany-acknowledges-840-Basic-performance-slow-down-promises-fix >> >> <http://www.pcper.com/news/Storage/Samsung-Germany-acknowledges-840-Basic-performance-slow-down-promises-fix> >> >>> As for Nano, I thought it mounted almost everything as RO and only >>> changed settings to write down settings changes, and RRD databases etc >>> on reboots? >> >> I think I’ve already responded to this. >> >> nano is a > 10 year old “solution” to the problems that existed at the time. >> http://markmail.org/message/rxe4xfpmdwva7q3e >> <http://markmail.org/message/rxe4xfpmdwva7q3e> >> >> That doesn’t mean it’s a bad solution, but though it’s author is a brilliant >> individual, he obviously didn’t envision SSD in 2004. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> List mailing list >> List@lists.pfsense.org <mailto:List@lists.pfsense.org> >> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> <https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list> > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
_______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
