On 14-09-10 03:51 AM, Trevor Cordes wrote:
Final note: After hearing ZFS (on Linux at least) cannot grow by 1 disk when using RAID5 or 6, and after nearly 10 years using XFS on md on huge arrays, I say give some hero cookies to md/XFS. It's withstood some pretty strange events on my server, and has never blown up. If I'm wrong about the sunit being a problem, then md/XFS is a great option for those who want to gradually add space as they need it.
The fixed-topology limitation is endemic to ZFS' design, not just the Linux port. However, there are many use cases where it's not a limitation: almost exactly the type of system we're trying to build. If you only have (say) 8 drive bays, and you fill all 8 drive bays on day 1, you never need to grow the array by a single drive; the only two growth scenarios that are possible are dictated by your hardware: a) replace all 8 drives with larger drives - ZFS supports this b) add an external drive shelf with another (say) 8 drives - ZFS supports this, as a second sub-volume, effectively creating a RAID n+0 (typically RAID60) volume. ZFS has three major advantages for most people: 1) no RAID write-hole behaviour; 2) automatic resilvering; 3) integrated, effectively infinite, snapshots with built-in replication. RHEL 7 (and thus CentOS 7, SL 7, etc.) defaults to XFS for the root file system. Obviously you're not the only one who likes XFS! I've generally found that the filesystem stripe width doesn't make a whole lot of difference on modern hardware; the worst-case I can recall encountering was actually due to block misalignment, not stripe width in the end. I do recall it making a measurable difference on slow 5400rpm IDE drives with a controller that didn't do useful caching, about 10 years ago. -- -Adam Thompson athompso@athompso.net Cell: +1 204 291-7950 Fax: +1 204 489-6515