From: Tim C. <tco...@ra...> - 2013-12-17 03:15:44
|
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013, Timothy J Massey wrote: > One last thing: everyone who uses ZFS raves about it. But seeing as (on > Linux) you're limited to either FUSE or out-of-tree kernel modules (of > questionable legality: ZFS' CDDL license is *not* GPL compatible), it's > not my first choice for a backup server, either. I am using it, and it sucks for a backuppc load (in fact, from the mailing list, it is currently (and has been for a couple of years) terrible on an rsync style workload - any metadata heavy workload will eventually crash the machine after a couple of weeks uptime. Some patches are being tested right now out of tree that look promising, but I won't be testing them myself until it hits master 0.6.3. Problem for me is that it takes about a month to migrate to a new filesystem. I migrated to zfs a couple of years ago with insufficient testing. I should have kept on ext4+mdadm (XFS was terrible too - no faster than ext4, and given that I've always lost data on various systems with it because it's such a flaky filesystem, I wasn't gaining anything). mdadm is more flexible than ZFS, although harder to configure. With mdadm+ext4, you can choose any disk arrangement you like without being limited to simple RAID-Z(n) arrangements of equal sized disks. That said, I do prefer ZFS's scrubbing compared to mdadm's, but only slightly. If I was starting from scratch and didn't have 4-5 years of backup archives, I'd tell backuppc to turn off compression and munging of the pool, and let ZFS do it. I used JFS 10 years ago, and "niche buggy product" would be my description for it. Basically, go with the well tested popular FSs, because they're not as bad as everyone makes them out to be. -- Tim Connors |