On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 07:41:11AM -0500, Nick Holland wrote: > On 02/19/13 05:47, MJ wrote: > > Which app are you running that is generating millions of tiny files > > in a single directory? Regardless, in this case OpenBSD is not the > > right tool for the job. You need either FreeBSD or a Solaris variant > > to handle this problem because you need ZFS. > > > > > > What limits does ZFS have? --------------------------------------- > > The limitations of ZFS are designed to be so large that they will > > never be encountered in any practical operation. ZFS can store 16 > > Exabytes in each storage pool, file system, file, or file attribute. > > ZFS can store billions of names: files or directories in a directory, > > file systems in a file system, or snapshots of a file system. ZFS can > > store trillions of items: files in a file system, file systems, > > volumes, or snapshots in a pool. > > > > > > I'm not sure why ZFS hasn't yet been ported to OpenBSD, but if it > > were then that would pretty much eliminate the need for my one and > > only FreeBSD box ;-) > > The usual stated reason is "license", it is completely unacceptable to > OpenBSD. > > The other reason usually not given which I suspect would become obvious > were the license not an instant non-starter is the nature of ZFS. As it > is a major memory hog, it works well only on loaded 64 bit platforms. > Since most of our 64 bit platforms are older, and Alpha and SGI machines > with many gigabytes of memory are rare, you are probably talking an > amd64 and maybe some sparc64 systems. > > Also...see the number of "ZFS Tuning Guides" out there. How...1980s. > The OP here has a "special case" use, but virtually all ZFS uses involve > knob twisting and experimentation, which is about as anti-OpenBSD as you > can get. Granted, there are a lot of people who love knob-twisting, but > that's not what OpenBSD is about. > > I use ZFS, and have a few ZFS systems in production, and what it does is > pretty amazing, but mostly in the sense of the gigabytes of RAM it > consumes for basic operation (and unexplained file system wedging). > I've usually seen it used as a way to avoid good system design. Yes, > huge file systems can be useful, but usually in papering over basic > design flaws.
If you don't like the RAM consumption of ZFS for basic operations, enable the deduplication. You will cry like a baby :D -- Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado http://juanfra.info
