DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2009-02
Re: OT - was Hammer or ZFS based backup, encryption
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
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
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
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...