FreeBSD and ZFS

Asked by angela turner

As many know, there is such an OS: FreeBSD. Bad or good, it does not matter, it is beyond the scope of this questionnaire. For those who like to write something like “FreeBSD - RIP”, please take a walk on link and leave this inscription there.
Also, there is such a file system called ZFS, the development of recently eaten Sun Microsystems. The file system is extremely interesting and quite remarkable.

I am the system administrator of HabraHabr and soon I plan a rather serious server economy upgrade. Among the ideas I have an idea to use ZFS. I recently started testing ZFS on FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE. The flight is normal, the kernel of panic was never, the speed satisfies. But the Internet is very different reviews, sometimes just inadequate. The level of abstraction of the file system is simply amazing; you can steer sections as you like on the fly; The speed is good, in some places faster than UFS2 + SU, and it is also very easy to deploy. Pleases from the box compression sections, snapshots and other utility. I picked it up on my test server: everything works fine, I did not notice any problems.

But still, I want to know the opinions of those who directly encountered ZFS deployment on the battle server running FreeBSD and used such a bundle under real load for quite a long time. Synthetic tests are also interesting, but to a lesser extent, for such synthetic ones are synthetic. Yes: I use only stable OS assemblies, the survey is more relevant to them.


hieu do
About a year FreeBSD with ZFS in a product on a file server. Average return is 1TB of traffic per day. Server: CPU - 2xOpteron 2214, Mem - 32G, controller - AMCC 9650SE-12M, disks - Seagate NS series, 10-12 pieces + SSD Intel X25-M under the cache device. Not a single ZFS hangup for the entire server operation. The only problem is the replacement of failed disks in raidz. You do replace the disk, the pool resilverts to a new disk, and the old one does not leave the configuration. I found the PR for this bug, whether I fixed it or not - I don’t know.
john paul pagano
On a home server (Cel3300, 2Gb, 4xWD EARS 2Tb; FreeBSD 8.1 amd64) I use ZFS in a 4xRAID1 and RAID10 configuration:

root@server:/usr/local/etc (1768) zpool status
  pool: storage
 state: ONLINE
 scrub: none requested

        NAME                 STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
        storage              ONLINE       0     0     0
          mirror             ONLINE       0     0     0
            gpt/storage0     ONLINE       0     0     0
            gpt/storage3     ONLINE       0     0     0
          mirror             ONLINE       0     0     0
            gpt/storage1     ONLINE       0     0     0
            gpt/storage2     ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

  pool: zroot
 state: ONLINE
 scrub: none requested

        NAME             STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
        zroot            ONLINE       0     0     0
          mirror         ONLINE       0     0     0
            gpt/system0  ONLINE       0     0     0
            gpt/system2  ONLINE       0     0     0
            gpt/system3  ONLINE       0     0     0
            gpt/system1  ONLINE       0     0     0

errors: No known data errors

The disks are broken like this (2 MB indented at the beginning of the disk to fix the AdvancedFormat problems on WD EARS screws):

root@server:/usr/local/etc (1771) gpart show
=>        34  3907029101  ada0  GPT  (1.8T)
          34        2014        - free -  (1.0M)
        2048         128     1  freebsd-boot  (64K)
        2176     8388608     2  freebsd-swap  (4.0G)
     8390784    41943040     3  freebsd-zfs  (20G)
    50333824  3856695311     4  freebsd-zfs  (1.8T)

=>        34  3907029101  ada1  GPT  (1.8T)
          34        2014        - free -  (1.0M)
        2048         128     1  freebsd-boot  (64K)
        2176     8388608     2  freebsd-swap  (4.0G)
     8390784    41943040     3  freebsd-zfs  (20G)
    50333824  3856695311     4  freebsd-zfs  (1.8T)

=>        34  3907029101  ada2  GPT  (1.8T)
          34        2014        - free -  (1.0M)
        2048         128     1  freebsd-boot  (64K)
        2176     8388608     2  freebsd-swap  (4.0G)
     8390784    41943040     3  freebsd-zfs  (20G)
    50333824  3856695311     4  freebsd-zfs  (1.8T)

=>        34  3907029101  ada3  GPT  (1.8T)
          34        2014        - free -  (1.0M)
        2048         128     1  freebsd-boot  (64K)
        2176     8388608     2  freebsd-swap  (4.0G)
     8390784    41943040     3  freebsd-zfs  (20G)
    50333824  3856695311     4  freebsd-zfs  (1.8T)

Problem: ZFS RAID10 has low read and write speed:
For example, entry:

dd if=/dev/zero of=/storage/test.file bs=1000M count
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1048576000 bytes transferred in 33.316996 secs (31472705 bytes/sec)

Or reading:

 dd if=/storage/test.file of=/dev/nulbs=1000M count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1048576000 bytes transferred in 13.424865 secs (78107005 bytes/sec)

systat looks like this:

    2 users    Load  0,29  0,12  0,04                  19 окт 14:27

Mem:KB    REAL            VIRTUAL                       VN PAGER   SWAP PAGER
        Tot   Share      Tot    Share    Free           in   out     in   out
Act 1048432    7548  2771456    11732   87616  count
All 1232436   10608 1076589k    29964          pages
Proc:                                                            Interrupts
  r   p   d   s   w   Csw  Trp  Sys  Int  Sof  Flt        cow    4770 total
             69      8556  20k  517  776  798  20k  20581 zfod    104 em0 uhci0
                                                        2 ozfod     5 uhci3 ehci
 9,7%Sys   0,0%Intr  0,0%User  0,0%Nice 90,3%Idle        %ozfod  1997 cpu0: time
|    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |       daefr       hdac0 257
=====                                                     prcfr   667 ahci0 259
                                           dtbuf     3762 totfr  1997 cpu1: time
Namei     Name-cache   Dir-cache    100000 desvn          react
   Calls    hits   %    hits   %     26371 numvn          pdwak
       2       2 100                 24996 frevn          pdpgs
Disks  ada0  ada1  ada2  ada3   da0 pass0 pass1    429056 wire
KB/t    128   128   128   127  0,00  0,00  0,00   1103516 act
tps     156   173   188   145     0     0     0    368484 inact
MB/s  19,51 21,62 23,48 18,03  0,00  0,00  0,00           cache
%busy    18    35    35    16     0     0     0     87616 free

And from the disks themselves reads quite acceptable:

1073741824 bytes transferred in 9.673196 secs (111001764 bytes/sec)
root@server:/usr/home/dyr (1769) dd if=/dev/gpt/storage1 of=/dev/null bs=1024M count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes transferred in 9.887180 secs (108599400 bytes/sec)
root@server:/usr/home/dyr (1770) dd if=/dev/gpt/storage2 of=/dev/null bs=1024M count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes transferred in 9.736273 secs (110282635 bytes/sec)
root@server:/usr/home/dyr (1772) dd if=/dev/gpt/storage3 of=/dev/null bs=1024M count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1073741824 bytes transferred in 11.112231 secs (96627025 bytes/sec)

What is the reason I do not understand.

vfs.zfs.l2c_only_size: 3535428608
vfs.zfs.mfu_ghost_data_lsize: 23331328
vfs.zfs.mfu_ghost_metadata_lsize: 20963840
vfs.zfs.mfu_ghost_size: 44295168
vfs.zfs.mfu_data_lsize: 0
vfs.zfs.mfu_metadata_lsize: 0
vfs.zfs.mfu_size: 11698176
vfs.zfs.mru_ghost_data_lsize: 22306304
vfs.zfs.mru_ghost_metadata_lsize: 8190464
vfs.zfs.mru_ghost_size: 30496768
vfs.zfs.mru_data_lsize: 512
vfs.zfs.mru_metadata_lsize: 0
vfs.zfs.mru_size: 20443648
vfs.zfs.anon_data_lsize: 0
vfs.zfs.anon_metadata_lsize: 0
vfs.zfs.anon_size: 1048576
vfs.zfs.l2arc_norw: 1
vfs.zfs.l2arc_feed_again: 1
vfs.zfs.l2arc_noprefetch: 0
vfs.zfs.l2arc_feed_min_ms: 200
vfs.zfs.l2arc_feed_secs: 1
vfs.zfs.l2arc_headroom: 2
vfs.zfs.l2arc_write_boost: 8388608
vfs.zfs.l2arc_write_max: 8388608
vfs.zfs.arc_meta_limit: 106137600
vfs.zfs.arc_meta_used: 104179208
vfs.zfs.mdcomp_disable: 0
vfs.zfs.arc_min: 53068800
vfs.zfs.arc_max: 424550400
vfs.zfs.zfetch.array_rd_sz: 1048576
vfs.zfs.zfetch.block_cap: 256
vfs.zfs.zfetch.min_sec_reap: 2
vfs.zfs.zfetch.max_streams: 8
vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable: 1
vfs.zfs.check_hostid: 1
vfs.zfs.recover: 0
vfs.zfs.txg.write_limit_override: 0
vfs.zfs.txg.synctime: 5
vfs.zfs.txg.timeout: 10
vfs.zfs.scrub_limit: 10
vfs.zfs.vdev.cache.bshift: 16
vfs.zfs.vdev.cache.size: 10485760
vfs.zfs.vdev.cache.max: 16384
vfs.zfs.vdev.aggregation_limit: 131072
vfs.zfs.vdev.ramp_rate: 2
vfs.zfs.vdev.time_shift: 6
vfs.zfs.vdev.min_pending: 4
vfs.zfs.vdev.max_pending: 10
vfs.zfs.cache_flush_disable: 0
vfs.zfs.zil_disable: 0
vfs.zfs.zio.use_uma: 0
vfs.zfs.version.zpl: 4 15
vfs.zfs.version.dmu_backup_stream: 1
vfs.zfs.version.dmu_backup_header: 2
vfs.zfs.version.acl: 1
vfs.zfs.debug: 0
vfs.zfs.super_owner: 0

The presence of the sharesmb and sharenfs file system options is a bit annoying - it's clear what they do on Solaris, but in FreeBSD, as I understand it, they just don't work.
Or here's another odd thing - when running zpool scrub storage, zpool iostat -v storage shows a different amount of used space and calls to different screws:
                        capacity     operations    bandwidth
pool                  used  avail   read  write   read  write
-------------------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
storage               652G  2,93T    505     20  61,3M   117K
  mirror              504G  1,29T    504      6  61,3M  39,1K
    gpt/storage0         -      -    495      5  61,5M  39,5K
    gpt/storage3         -      -    495      6  61,5M  39,5K
  mirror              148G  1,64T      0     13   1023  78,2K
    gpt/storage1         -      -      0     10      0  78,6K
    gpt/storage2         -      -      0     10      0  78,6K
-------------------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----

- gary bunker

vm.kmem_size = "999M"
vm.kmem_size_max = "999M"
vfs.zfs.arc_max = "160M"
vfs.zfs.prefetch_disable = 1
kern.ipc.nsfbufs = 10240 - ryon
The same:
# dd if=/storage/test.file of=/dev/null bs=1000M count=1
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
1048576000 bytes transferred in 13.490830 secs (77725092 bytes/sec)

Make kern.ipc.nsfbufs = 10240 failed neither from /etc/sysctl.conf, nor from /boot/loader.conf, the current value is "0". - oren
try to use not / dev / ada, but / dev / ad
read - venita
I first tried on ad and tried, and only then switched to new drivers.
This forum read. I'm surprised, by the way, that the author of that topic did not try analog RAID10, because I consider it the most convenient for 4-screw configurations for a number of parameters.

Moreover, I additionally tested the server, adding 1 GB of memory to it (that is, a total of 3 GB) and replacing the processor in it with a Core2Quad.
Here is link I published as tested and test results.

Moreover, I tried to test the Seagate 7200.10 on a desktop server with Core2Duo and 2GB of memory from a LiveCD OpenIndiana, and the speed was also quite low, around 40MB / s. - richard ellis
nicki lewis
Synthetic Test:
But this is foronyx. And the test, as usual, has little to do with reality)

In general, I have one server with backup, backup, costs with zfs. Out of curiosity it is completely unnecessary there. Well, it seems to work, what else to say, there is no special load there, there are no power offs, frya does not hang.

It seems to me that if you really need the advantages that zfs provides, then it should be used. If they are not very necessary, then it is not worth it. it is still experimental.
We also have a backup server on it. ))
The fact of the matter is that it seems to be completely not experimental, as the developers say. ZFSv14 is fully claimed as a production solution. - ginbquik
just any UFS + Journal and others like them crutches already at the configuration stage, and ZFS is quite easy to set up and maintained. The possibility of tuning a section is also very interesting: you can tweak something under MySQL. - maria augustina recla
lex huckabay
I use ZFS and FreeBSD 8.1 for a backup server (raidz on a pack of 2TB disks).
The load is small (for that he backups), problems zero.
Raidz or raidz2?
And how reliable is it in terms of departure, say 2 disks at the same time? - alana himber
raidz. if two crashes, everything will blur. as well as on the classic mirror'e of two discs. or on raid5 - janey
I have been testing FreeBSD with ZFS for about a month as a file server. Access around 400-800 people per day. While all happy. I do not notice any problems at work. If in another month there will be no problems, I put ZFS on the main file server, in the hope of at least reducing the load.
Guys, has anyone already experienced the fall of one of the hard drives of the combined ZFS under fryaha?
In Solaris, everything is great, and ZFS can be trusted, but will it still be so great to happen in fryahe?
Backup is of course our everything, but first of all, the viability of the system in case of failure of one of the disks is of interest.
to check pulled out. in combat, no one has yet to do :) - brian hird
I use ZFS on a file server in raidz2 + mode on several wheelbarrows in myrror. God forbid raidz, but on one of the mirrors, the disk died - they noticed the third day, they tampered with a new one - everything works like a clock. no data loss, no special downtime;) - jcolli3
paul mcgee
yes, in principle, tolerable. Not to say that faster (file help), but obviously more convenient.
pat shay
I run ZFS on FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT:

raidz2 of 6 disks + disk for the system - mainly file storage, torrent storage and via ftp backup server raid 1 with loading on ZFS - nginx + php + mysql ZFS single disk - nginx + php + mysql
When copying a large number of small files ~ 30G within one pool, the system starts to blunt.
But here one has to put up with either a high IO speed or temporary brakes with vfs.zfs.arc overflow…
chantal roelofsen
Not able. But there is no problem in this either. Or is it a daily task for someone?
So unless, to boys to be measured: “it does in half-kick!” :)
But not the same, just LVM in the fray - somehow crooked, for and ZFS you want to do it with might and main. Now on the backup file server rolled, I will test speed.

And the boys are surrounded by those that AD set up on their Windows with manuals. : ( - japdo
. Contact me, if that. I am 15 years old with a Solaris, and ZFS since its inception. There is also a pair of FreeBSD with ZFS.
But honestly, in the real world, it never took to “shrink the pool.” Expand - yes, often. And in the opposite direction - well, in a hypothetically invented situation, it can and should be. But even then it is easier to attach “smaller screws” and throw a snapshot on them via zfs send | zfs recv - celica jones
Oh! Thank you very much! :)

Why reduce? For example, on LVM there was an array of 500 + 750 + 750. 750 began to crumble, but there are no 750s, but there are only 500, we connect 500, pvmove with 750, we disconnect, the array is reduced by this 750.

How can I handle this situation on ZFS? Or already to go begging and spend a thousand or another dollars on a normal home file server? - emerson probst
sarah temple
In combat, everything is cool if you use snapshots.
This killer feature is still in ZFS.
shabnam morakabatchian
Slightly oftopik, but I can not say.
As the administrator of a large project, it would be a rule to introduce into the enterprise only well-tested and tested technologies, which you are well-versed in and about which you can have a weighted opinion.
And the approach - “but advise me how different things to me here, and I will zayuzayu them on the hot” - this is a dead end.
ZFS on x86 - so far too green for enterprise production. Do you want ZFS - take the Solarium to T2 - for multi-threaded web business - the most it. Well, it's clear that you need to know Solaris))).
oh yes, and besides, ZFS now under Linux pedalirut unprecedented pace. And I am sure that very soon, the Linux implementation will overtake that of FreeBSD. Although there is some native "analog" - btrfs. - reza
btrfs'u to ZFS as to alpha centauria. If only because ZFS is not just FS, but a completely new management of all this. - rita wright
So that technologies were well tested and tested, they need to be checked and tested. And also to find out the opinions of those who actually tested and tested them. That is why I did this questionnaire. And put Solarium precisely because there ZFS is a native system, in my opinion, nonsense. Yes: no one is going to take and use the hot one right away, so the soil is “probed.” In any case, my opinion will not be complete and subjective: I will not physically model all possible problems, and the more people actually use the bundle, the more statistics. For now, ZFS leads FS for FreeBSD on almost all fronts, including speed, while negative feedback was mainly relative to unstable builds. - shawks bell
Administrators of an enterprise put SHD for 0.5 million green money, with full duplication and other counters, and do not soar. At the same time, the capitalization of the business with such solutions will be increased, while the admins will have fewer hemorrhoids. By the way, they also do not like Linux in the Enterprise, except for those that cost money (and they cost Oracle, for example), but there is no question about FreeBSD. However, here the project is more telecom, and there administrators can have fun for fun, there is still no money for storage =) - will van heerden
I love this pasta and how Habr speaks with it: D - normandie hincks
and how is it better than LVM over RAID (1.5) under Linux?
These are completely different things and work in different ways and are managed. No better, no worse, just different. - cristybutit
Well, why is it different? In fact, both of them are an additional level of abstraction between the file system and the disk drive. - here they are quite even compared. - amanda callendrier
This is a feature comparison. The level of abstraction in ZFS is completely different than that of classic fs - james townsend
well, so LVM is not a fs. at all. rather container manager for f.s. - christy merrell
dave g
Guys, I used LVM on debian, now it’s spinning on the fra. I’m doing a backup file server, while LVM / ZFS is currently being used exclusively for merging hard drives of different sizes into one large disk.

Is ZFS really not able to shrink the pool? LVM does this in half a ping through pvmove. :(

becky bell
500 + 750 + 750 - was this type of stripe? well, raid0 supposedly all in one bunch?

Because if there is a mirror or raidz, then it will still be used by 500 on each disk (minimum in the pool). In this case, there are no problems at all. Zpool replace bububu
No, no, no, of course, not a stripe. Stripe deliberately did not screw up - he was scared at the LVM siutatsii that if one of the disks fails, not only will the infa be lost from him, but also from the others.

And the heap in ZFS for the dough is blinded, yes, "in a heap of everything":
 ad1: 76319MB <Seagate ST380011A 3.06> at ata0-slave UDMA100
ad2: 117245MB <Maxtor 6Y120L0 YAR41BW0> at ata1-master UDMA133
ad3: 152627MB <WDC WD1600JB-00REA0 20.00K20> at ata1-slave UDMA100

And it turned out:
 reserve# zfs list pool
pool 388M 332G 388M /pool

At the collection of ports and sortsy immediately cut a compression. Already starting to go positively.

Still, it turns out that for the time being let it stay that way, and the first investment of home is five or six large identical disks for raidz3, which is promised in v28 FreeBSD. In the meantime, I try a full-time 8.2 v14 out of the box. - jessikitty
andrew patton
With a "bunch" a separate question :) I can suggest hint how to deal with all this zpool {add, replace, attach, detach, online, offline}.

Create several files (can be of different sizes, in the proportions that are interesting).
And do zpool _ of these files_ :) zpool create testpool / path / to / file10G / path / to / file20G / path / to / file20G
Well, try to “unhook the disk” from the pool, “hook back”, “offline”, back “online”, make replace one to another. And look at the practice, what you can do, what you will not allow. Do not break anything, info 100% :) And no screws are needed at all.
Thank you. :)

I just now have these screws for the test. Now I’ll break the remaining space in the system disk, attach more screws, all to different filesystems, for example, and begin a total distortion with recording all actions in a notebook.

Incredibly interesting thing this ZFS, by the way. - dylan quarles
& gt; Incredibly interesting thing about this ZFS, by the way

I have a pool of approximately 16 terabytes in which thousands and three and a half of file systems have been sliced ​​:) - kathy
The power failure test with two parallel movements was successful. Fantastish. The compression ratio on ports + sorts 2.39h. Fantastish. Onseflay.

Now I really want to raise the same pool by about the same terabyte on modern hardware. This is just a bomb! In fact, as promised in the article, partition management has become as easy as managing directories. And why did I invent geom concat and lvm before, when zfs in the fra is from the 7th branch? .. - christa hogan
By the way, is there a reason to wind the future server for the sake of native ZFS on diesel? Or v28 and on fre ok? - leanda
& gt; The test for power failure with two parallel movements passed successfully
copy on write, atomic metadata, blablabla :)

& gt; Compression ratio on ports + sorts 2.39x
and there, in principle, there are still pens for which you can twist :)

& gt; partition management is as easy as managing directories.
yes it is, I have on ftp every user on the file system, instead of a directory :) do you need ftpd quotas when you can cut it right on the file system? :)

and on Solaris, zfs {sharenfs, sharesmb, shareiscsi} still rely on this whole web, which is not available on freebsd :) - rosie frascella
About atomic metadata, but what about checking and fixing file systems?

About pens - my head is spinning on the number of pens in the manual, honestly. :))

About the management of partitions and each for FS - this is a consequence of the ideology of zfs, right? :) Some kind of very free ideology turns out, a couple of teams decide everything, looking for a catch, damn it. :))

I already read about zfs {sharenfs, sharesmb, shareiscsi}. And now I raise all three ports, damn it. :)))) - uht
& gt; how to check and fix file systems?
Nothing :) Suddenly :)

& gt; this is a consequence of the ideology of zfs, right?

& gt; And now I lift all three ports, damn it.
And will it work on bsd? In my opinion, these commands in the port on freebsd are simply not implemented. Well, maybe sharenfs except. Although I haven’t looked for a long time what they ported there - it hadn’t been there before. - elizabeth nguyen
No, no, you misunderstood me. Established samba, iscsi-target and tools for nfs poured into the kernel. :) - pandaib
And I did not understand - how is it nothing to check? - kelly irish
Well, this is a completely different calico :) Not related to ZFS, is configured separately, for attributes that are set via zfs set shareiscsi = on not paying attention. On Solaris, everything is more transparent. - paul blumer
Yes, that's it. No need to check there. It checks itself. There is a zfs set checksum = on (enabled by default). There is zfs set copies = N (at least a hundred, if the place is not sorry). And mirror or raidz are restored automatically, if there is something (and from where) to restore. What do fsck on ext3 and ufs c softupdates do now? Roll over a magazine? ZFS will roll it itself when the pool is raised.

If in doubt, you can force zpool scrub mysuperpuperpool to be forced. - alison gettler
Of course, but what to do? :) Unless to download x86 Solaris.
In the meantime, drive in virtual U3. - regina ligon
I have much more solaris than bsd, so here I’m a bad advisor :) It would be easier for me to make another solaris box. But there for the unprepared person there can be something else tao with the compilation of typical software (although there is pkgsrc from netbsd, consider the same ports, or opencsw in general - you don't need to compile anything).

Well, the very installation of the minimum OS (something like the Base System on FreeBSD, about 200 meters without too much trash) will also require a certain amount of perseverance and a desire to "figure it out." Well, or as an option - OpenSolaris in the default installation, but this is 4 gigabytes "all in a row" along with X and other tripe.
The desire to understand is present from birth. And then I would not do this curiosity for the sake of it - I am not an admin, I would be a dislocator. :)

Two disks sent me a long time ago: 11/06 Solaris 10 Operating System. One, of course, for the Spark, but the second dividyuk for these our x86. It? - lauren hough
On bezrybe suitable, although too old (11/06 - this is November 2006, "U3" is still called). I recommend to search Solaris 10 10/09 (the so-called "U8"). This is the last pure Sun's release, before Orakl bought the most important SamyManCommit - change of copyright from © Sun to (c) Oracle :) And changed the EULA to your proprietary taste.

The file will be called sol-10-u8-ga-x86-dvd.iso (md5 9df7fd02d82976fd3ec38a18d1a57335). Take about link. - katherine williams
Megascabo, damn it! :)

Now I will ask friends with thick Internet zafetchit image. :) - tamra king
suzze tiernan
But how did it all end? also interested in how ZFS will live on FreeBSD
Everything works fine, we have been installing servers and VDS - soheil ghassemi
for several years, but are there any nuances? heap type strings in /etc/sysctl.conf? - summerscent
yes no, loading zfs in one line is prescribed and that is all if special tuning is required. In the top ten, you can already directly install from the installer on ZFS. - james vernon
laura lagassee
Three years have passed. Share your experience?
Much better in operation than UFS2, more reliable.
Of the minuses, we need knowledge and resources for tuning for high performance. - jennifer phelps
actively use, normal flight) - pirateheather
SSD not using with ZFS? - ashling
How much can an experienced web developer get today? :: Geographically Distributed MySQL :: Best ORM for C # :: DoubleVPN do it yourself. Is it possible to? :: From which book to start learning Java?
Leave Repply for FreeBSD and ZFS
Useful Links