Originally posted by smitty3268
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Benchmarks Of ZFS-FUSE On Linux Against EXT4, Btrfs
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by edogawaconan View PostBy at all, I mean no delayed datafile writing, no additional write, and done in an instant.
I've got transactional logs being created every 10 minutes and getting backed up. What would this possibly gain me in real life and not just theoretically?
Just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it SHOULD be.
Comment
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostAnd again, I ask: What's the point?
I've got transactional logs being created every 10 minutes and getting backed up. What would this possibly gain me in real life and not just theoretically?
Just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it SHOULD be.
- instaneous database cloning (useful when doing upgrade simulation, additionally, it doesn't use extra space until new data is written)
- configuration-less backup
- centralized, simple backup of everything, not just database (useful for all-in-one servers)
Well, if those above don't matter to you, yes, probably there's no benefit in using zfs snapshot
Comment
-
Originally posted by edogawaconan View Post- instaneous recovery (zfs rollback)
Originally posted by edogawaconan View Post- instaneous database cloning (useful when doing upgrade simulation, additionally, it doesn't use extra space until new data is written)
Originally posted by edogawaconan View Post- configuration-less backup
Originally posted by edogawaconan View Post- centralized, simple backup of everything, not just database (useful for all-in-one servers)
Originally posted by edogawaconan View PostWell, if those above don't matter to you, yes, probably there's no benefit in using zfs snapshot
Very comforting to know that option existed, although I can't see using it for anything else.
Comment
-
Why does KQ Infotech get the press for this article? I thought they were just ripping off LLNL?
Comment
-
Originally posted by locovaca View PostIt is poor data management. Transaction logs shoulb be the last line of defense against failure, not the first. Timely, application specific backups should always be your first line of defense. ZFS snapshots, in this case, depend on the database engine's emergency recover processes as your only line of defense.
Comment
-
Since your SSD probably uses 4kb blocks, have you considered doing the benchmark for ZFS with an ashift of 12 (instead of 9 i.e. 0.5kb blocks)? For my damn WD drives this was a serious performance boost. http://www.solarismen.de/archives/2010/08/08.html
Comment
-
Originally posted by HisDudeness View PostSince your SSD probably uses 4kb blocks, have you considered doing the benchmark for ZFS with an ashift of 12 (instead of 9 i.e. 0.5kb blocks)? For my damn WD drives this was a serious performance boost. http://www.solarismen.de/archives/2010/08/08.html
I will test if my zfs is working correctly on one of 2TB WD *EARS disk.
Comment
-
Originally posted by waucka View PostSnapshots only help you recover from "oops, I accidentally deleted a file", not "uh oh, the hard disk just failed".
Comment
-
Originally posted by kraftman View PostIf this was Ext4 fault and if this happened in enterprise system (which didn't).
Damn troll. Ext3, Ext4, XFS are great file systems. And no, it's not amazing, but it's something natural, because it's an Operating System which is present probably in every environment. What's the good choice in your opinion?
So, yes, they are great FS but not for today's storage requirements (checksums are not optional). So, calling the guy a troll is a trollish comment in my books.
Comment
Comment