Comment by bayindirh
6 years ago
Honestly, I wouldn't bash him for this comment. Not everyone runs a 10+ TB array at their home for storage and backup purposes.
ZFS doesn't primarily target single disks and small arrays anyway. :)
6 years ago
Honestly, I wouldn't bash him for this comment. Not everyone runs a 10+ TB array at their home for storage and backup purposes.
ZFS doesn't primarily target single disks and small arrays anyway. :)
ZFS made wonders for me with very small servers (appliances) with SSDs that were forced to operate in remote areas on unstable power supply - where other file systems were dropping bytes and bricking them.
It's great on small disks, using ZFS root on solaris 11 in my day job, I can tell you it makes management a lot easier. Patching and rollbacks are like eating a nice dessert.
people probably will, in a few years.
rotational disks are getting cheaper and cheaper, 10TB disks in two years might cost as little as 2TB disks today (i got a 2TB disk for like 50€ off Amazon).
> people probably will, in a few years.
Yes, but without the array as you stated. We have 300+ 10TB disks at our datacenter today and, ZFS is relevant at this disk count, I/O and client load.
Running ZFS at small scale is raising a cow at home for a bucket of raw milk. It's more of a fun curiosity rather than a production level operation.
I'd run LVM or md or something similar at home instead of a full blown ZFS setup for practical reasons.
I feel ZFS are much better and easier than md or LVM. At least had it been properly supported (I have never tried ZoL).
CoW and cheap snapshots are game-changers, checksums as well but maybe not from a practicality and home-user standpoint. This holds just as well on PB storage as a 512 GB OS drive as a 2 GB thumb-drive (not that I would use ZFS on a thumb drive - again because of proper support across different OS).
4 replies →
I think ZFS - or at least the set of features ZFS provides - is relevant at any size or disk count all the way down to a single disk in a laptop. I've previously run ZFS on single block devices, though nowadays all my personal machines use at least ZFS mirroring. Without redundancy it can't recover from damage on its own, but checksums and free snapshots are irreplaceable to me.
It doesn't have to be ZFS in particular, I'll gladly switch my Linux systems over once a proper alternative is in the kernel. But right now it's the only working, mature solution. Bcachefs isn't ready yet and BTRFS isn't trustworthy.
1 reply →
LVM/mdraid configuration is much more daunting than ZFS on BSD or Illumos, especially given the Availability of things like FreeNAS
> Running ZFS at small scale is raising a cow at home for a bucket of raw milk. It's more of a fun curiosity rather than a production level operation.
Well on one hand this is true, but on the other hand...
If you're running more than one disk at home, maybe you're some kind of enthusiast (homelabber?) And willing to put some effort into that. Under this scenario, the same amount of time spent learning zfs yields better results vs lvm/mdadm.
The risk of bit rot is still a thing at home or in the data center. And the other niceties of ZFS like snapshots and such are a boon too. Instead of a few various layers you have one whole subsystem to do all of it: all of this you know well using it in the data center. I just use it at home too