None are perfect. But ZFS is just *too* new. And not just on *BSD.
If IBM had not already had GPFS, Sun might never even have 'invented' ZFS.
The 'other' ones with the longest 'history' - where known-problems have knwon
avoidance/workaround, may well be XFS and JFS. Heavy-lifters iwht commercial
track-records, both.
Not to mention UFS...
I'm still in the practice of 'slicing' into 50 GB or so - 100GB max - no matter
*what* the drive size is.
So where's the 'beef'?
Half-terabyte *files*? I surely hope not..
At some point too many eggs (files) in one basket just makes b/u restore a
nightmare.
There are no silver bullets.
Drives fail. Controllers fail, and sometimes had done so long before anyone
noticed they were subtly corrupting data. So even RAID arrays and offline b/u
can fail one..
ZFS doesn't 'fix' all that - just approaches a fix in an all-software manner.
Other failings aside, there is an overhead penalty for all the 'handling'.
Coders may believe in that. It's what they do.
I'll take simplicity, redundant hardware. And compartmentalization.
Faster, cheaper, lasts a long time.
And takes more manageable sized chunks out of yerass when it DOES go tits-up.
As that all do.
Bill
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"