3 ms·
The two problems I see are ZFS really wants a bit of a beefier machine, plus all the RAM you can throw at it. That pretty much excludes anything low end by defa
by geerlingguy 5y ago
The two problems I see are ZFS really wants a bit of a beefier machine, plus all the RAM you can throw at it. That pretty much excludes anything low end by default (not to mention more expensive ECC memory).
- handrous 5y agoI think ZFS only needs lots of memory if you have certain features (notably, deduplication) enabled. Meanwhile, you're still a lot better off, data-integrity-wise, with ZFS and non-ECC memory than you are with most other filesystems with non-ECC memory.
- nine_k 5y agoXFS also does checksums, but only for metadata.
- 3np 5y agoIt depends on the workload. With insufficent memory and/or latency, ZFS can perform orders of magnitude worse than ext4/xfs, even when tuned. (I speak from experience) Not exactly the same, but did you ever try ZFS on a commodity USB stick? It can get really bad when circumstances are not in favor. With not too much concurrency it can perform quite well even under constraints, though!
- KaiserPro 5y agoI've run ZFS on 2/4/8 & 16 gig machines. Yes, more ram makes things a bit faster, as you get a bigger arc cache. however as you point out, 4gigs is more than enough to surface a 1gig connection. Especially on a bunch of SSDs