3 ms·
I have sympathy with, and am open-minded to, the conclusions of this article - even as a die-hard, true believer in the filesystem (esp. ZFS) as a useful founda
by rsync 7y ago
I have sympathy with, and am open-minded to, the conclusions of this article - even as a die-hard, true believer in the filesystem (esp. ZFS) as a useful foundational building block.
However, I hope that these conclusions do not lead to the intentional deprecation of support for filesystems in projects like Ceph. If a non-filesystem backing store is superior, then by all means do it, but I hope the ability to deploy a filesystem-backed endpoint will be retained.
In a pinch, it's very flexible and there are a lot of them lying around ...
- amluto 7y agoIf nothing else, most filesystems can expose a big file that can be used, with decent efficiency, as though it was a disk. For COW filesystems, turning off COW on the file may improve performance, and, if the FS is on RAID, the resulting performance and correctness properties will be odd.
- pm7 7y agoBut if services will need to use one big file, we won't have possibility to overcommit disk space (unless they implement something like TRIM).