On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 01:21 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:14:25PM +0000, Luca Filipozzi wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 10:49:48PM +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > > > Steven Chamberlain <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > > > Wouldn't ZFS be a more natural way to do something like this? > > > Possibly, but I have zero hopes of getting it set up and supported by > > > DSA, so we can’t use it for this service. > > > > To address this specific thread, the challenge with ZFS is not that we don't > > like the idea (I'm keen on it, actually) but that it's not in the Linux kernel. > > We prefer to use stock Debian kernels than custom-built kernels or modules for > > our machines. > > > > Is there another filesystem (or another approach) that would improve > > performance? > > Funny that you ask. What's the usual competitor for ZFS? > btrfs is included in stock kernels, doesn't take massive amounts of memory, > and has a different approach to deduplication. and is slower than any of its competitors. (But at least it doesn't have an incompatible licence.) > Recent kernels are needed only for race-free deduplication, "cp --reflink" > works in oldstable. Please don't suggest using the squeeze or wheezy version of btrfs in production. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If God had intended Man to program, we'd have been born with serial I/O ports.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part