chaostheo

7 ms·

1.
by chaostheo 1y ago
If you are running a multi device real world file server, the benchmark result of gemetric mean are still too good to zfs.
2.
by chaostheo 2y ago
Still ZFS for stability ?? Pull the power plug while writing and you know what your stability is worth in reality. I would say say ZFS is for verify as long as you have a usv in front of your server otherwise with a poweroutage you should h
3.
by chaostheo 2y ago
Didn't you still think that zfs is not a bit slow for nfs file service (real clients or for any vm/container) ? 2x Srv, Xeon 62xy, 192G, 13x18T r6 xfs, 100Gb connectx6, ipoib, nfs4: ./elbencho -r -b 1M -t 8 -s 10g --direct
4.
by chaostheo 2y ago
That's true, only mkfs.xfs & mount is required, any tuning options are optional. Write to filesystem while cut host power, last written data is incomplete but filesystem is coming up. With zfs you will get good chance for loosing i
5.
by chaostheo 2y ago
Anytime the day will come where zpool options clear, -f, readonly, -F, -X, -T in any combination wouldn't help importing a pool. The best is to check that out by yourself by a power cut while writing to a testpool dataset and just be p
6.
by chaostheo 2y ago
Yes, without the auto-survive of a power outage zfs will never be accepted by redhat whatever the zfs license is look like in the future, still this simplest thing can bring lots of headache and pain even zfs designed zil and slog but what
7.
by chaostheo 2y ago
These features keeps me solidly without ZFS: 0. Powercut zfs host : cannot import pool without destroy old and create new. 1. For case "0" need minimum 2nd zfs host while backup restore even slower. 2. Extrem slow meta-/data