5 ms·
As a Solaris admin, it's a little strange to hear ZFS called a "next-gen" filesystem. (It's been around for at least 7-8 years!) But it's good to see these idea
by omh 13y ago
As a Solaris admin, it's a little strange to hear ZFS called a "next-gen" filesystem. (It's been around for at least 7-8 years!)
But it's good to see these ideas getting usable in other operating systems, especially with the current state of Solaris licensing.
- yan 13y agoI think this is why there's a distinction between "new" and "next-gen". ZFS still has a lot of features and concepts that make most "current generation" file systems feel like toys.
- bensummers 13y agoAlso, Docker vs Zones. Linux still has a way to go. :-)
- MBCook 13y agoI'm using HFS+. It's a last-last gen filesystem if ever there was one. It's the only FS I've ever had silent corruption on, and it used to happen (10.4? 10.5? 10.6?) all the time. I'd kill to have Apple just buy a license to NTFS.
- groby_b 13y agoUh, you might want to look at NTFS performance for your given use case. If, say, you're a C++ programmer and your use case is reading lots of small files quickly and closing them again so you can compile, NTFS is a horror cabinet. HFS beats that quite handily (and gets obliterated by ExtFS2 performance.)
- MBCook 13y agoAt this point, I'd just like a filesystem I don't have to worry about. I never had a problem with NTFS.
- gaadd33 13y agoSo having slow compiles on NTFS is worse than having silent corruption on HFS?
- groby_b 13y agoDepends on the use case, no? Would I want to store a lot of important write-once data on HFS? Reluctantly, if at all. High-throughput database? Yuck, no. Would I trust it with a source-tree that is stored in a DVCS and immediately restorable, while also giving me much faster compiles? Yep. Would I choose either FS for a server? Nope. That was the point - there is no single "best" file system, or the world would've long ago settled on it. Look at what you need it for, and make your decision accordingly.