3 ms·
> My only (minor) complaint is the extra 30 seconds it adds to my desktop's boot time. Wait. What? You'll forgive me, I have no experience with ZFS: why??
by BaseballPhysics 3y ago
> My only (minor) complaint is the extra 30 seconds it adds to my desktop's boot time.
Wait. What? You'll forgive me, I have no experience with ZFS: why??
- dsr_ 3y agoI have a fair amount of experience with ZFS, and have the same question.
- tremon 3y agoMetadata scanning, I presume. It's not quite 30 seconds, but mounting my 4-drive 12TB btrfs volume (spinning rust) also feels like it takes upwards of ten seconds (I've never bothered to actually measure the mount time, so can't say with certainty).
- dTP90pN 3y agoBtrfs mounting of larger arrays became near-instant for me with the new block group tree enabled; see btrfstune: https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfstune.html https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfstune.html
- aidenn0 3y agoImporting ZFS pools from spinning disks can be slow. I'm guessing there's some serious random access going on because it's nearly instantaneous on SSDs
- someplaceguy 3y agoWhen importing/opening a ZFS pool, ZFS traverses the last few transaction groups written to the ZFS pool as well as the intent logs as a verification step to make sure that the ZFS pool is in a safe/consistent state before continuing (which could otherwise corrupt a ZFS pool even more and make the pool unrecoverable if something were to be wrong). I'm not sure if this is the main bottleneck when opening a ZFS pool during boot, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were. And if it is, personally I'm willing to sacrifice some boot time for some assurances that my data will be safer, but of course, not everyone's priorities are the same as mine :) (Also, for the record, for me the pool import/opening process is nearly instantaneous on SSDs/NVMe and takes 2.4 seconds on a 12-year-old Intel Atom machine with a single HDD pool).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]