4 ms·
I don't say it is the right choice in 'most cases', but its my preferred default choice for /etc and user home directories. The hard case is databases. ZFS has
by chalst 5y ago
I don't say it is the right choice in 'most cases', but its my preferred default choice for /etc and user home directories.
The hard case is databases. ZFS has a lot to offer (convenient support at FS level for replication stands out), but it is doing a lot of things that are solved problems in the design of competently designed databases and I never trust this kind of needless complexity. Of course if you really care about performance here, you should be willing to roll up your sleeves and tune the settings of the FS and ZFS is really nice in how it allows its complex features to be switched off.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago> The hard case is databases. I can kind of see your point, but I trust ZFS to never lose data, and I trust (in my case) postgres to never lose data, so the only issue is performance, and while that varies immensely, I mostly work on data that compresses well, so I can barely afford not to use ZFS with compression, because it saves a ton of space and actually improves I/O performance (if you're I/O bound, compressing your data lets you read and write faster than the physical disks can handle, which is still wild to me). Of course, that all depends on trusting all parts of the system; if I thought that ZFS+postgres could ever lose data, or possibly that there was a real risk of it causing an outage (say, memory exhaustion), it'd be a harder trade to make.
- chalst 5y agoLosing data isn't the fear, it's that there might be weird corner cases that lead to badly unpredictable performance.