DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2009-02
DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2009-02
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OT - was Hammer or ZFS based backup, encryption

From: Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:07:30 +0800

Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 01:36:28PM +0100, Michael Neumann wrote:
Am Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:17:11 -0800
schrieb Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@parodius.com>:


The one thing we all agree on is that, generally speaking, UFS isn't cutting it. :-)

*I* don't agree.

Mind, we don't currently run any single-store over 2 TB with it here, but there is a great deal of life left in FFS2/UFS2.

I don't view either ZFS or HAMMER as coming into being because UFS doesn't work as a file system - but rather that UFS and necessary 'add-ons' (+ snapshots + incremental backups + network bandwidth limitations + peak loading + admin labor costs) - could all be improved upon.

IOW - the 'package'.

HAMMER - or ZFS - are sets of compromises - and all such things are compromises - that address that 'package' need - itself dictated by the astonishing growth in drive sizes, and the even more rapid growth in the all-too-frequently outright garbage the human race chooses to save on those...


IOW HAMMER or ZFS or [Linux flavor of the day fs] are 'nice to have maybe' today. The 'essential' part is still a ways off for most of us.

But coming fast.

Look for example, at the data stream Dfarm was designed to capture...

Now think about a *serious* load. Perhaps Interactive gamer scoring...



[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]