DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2007-02
DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2007-02
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Plans for 1.8+ (2.0?)

From: "Dmitri Nikulin" <dnikulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 19:20:33 +1100

On 2/1/07, ricardo <ricardo@igotbsd.org> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:35:42 -0500 (EST)
"Justin C. Sherrill" <justin@shiningsilence.com> wrote:

> On Wed, January 31, 2007 3:18 pm, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> >
> >     I am seriously considering our options with regards to ZFS or a
> >     ZFS-like filesystem.  We clearly need something to replace UFS,
> >     but I am a bit worried that porting ZFS would be as much work
> >     as simply designing a new filesystem from scratch.
> One of the reasons people are so excited about ZFS is because it
> solves the problem of managing space.  Disk management is and has
> always been a pain in the rear, and ZFS goes a long way toward
> reducing that.
> While constructing a new filesystem will help your goals, it will also
> mean that DragonFly users miss out on having all the other advantages
> that come with ZFS.  Put another way, we're going to lose planned
> functionality.

  You're implying that ZFS=God, in other words, you're implying that
there could be no better FS that ZFS. A very obnoxious statement!

That's not his point. He means that ZFS, while very good at what it is, would not be optimal for transparent clustering. And a file system which is designed for clustering won't necessarily be as good as ZFS on single machines. Either way, some use cases becomes sub-optimal, and it's a choice of what's more important to do first.

ZFS is optimized all the way down to avoiding byte swapping with a
simple but adequate "endian adaptiveness" technique, and being as new
as it is, it still has a few years worth of optimization potential.
It's definitely not going to perform as well on DragonFly as it does
on Solaris for a long time, but it could still be better than UFS by
design alone. Any optimization over that is just a bonus.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced there's a need to make a new
filesystem just for clustering, not just yet anyway. How about 9P?
It's not like clustering is a brand new problem, it's had decades of
research applied and there is no shortage of work to reference until
it's practical to attempt to do better.

Dmitri Nikulin

Centre for Synchrotron Science
Monash University
Victoria 3800, Australia

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