#VDEV EVICTION OPENZFS FULL#

#VDEV EVICTION OPENZFS FULL#

Either way, no filesystem will handle mostly full disks very well in terms of fragmentation, so this is not something specific to ZFS, it’s just how they (have to) work. It might be true that ZFS fragments more around 80% utilization than ext4, but this is probably just a side-effect of copy-on-write. The free-space bitmap comment is just weird/wrong, because ZFS actually has more scalable data structures for this than most other filesystems (such as ext4). Performance degrades faster with low free space:.I wouldn’t call it slow, but ZFS can be slower than ext4, sure (but it’s also doing a lot more than ext4, on purpose, such as checksumming, copy-on-write, etc).

OpenZFS can now do scrubs and resilvers (mostly) sequentially, so this point is wrong now. I guess this is still true? I’m not entirely sure because I’m not following OpenZFS development closely nor do I use RAID-Z.Īs far as I know this is correct (in terms of IOPS), so RAID-Z pools are more appropriate for sequential I/O rather than random I/O. It would actually have been easier to make the vdev hierarchy more flexible, but ZFS is more strict on purpose, so users don’t end up with bad pool configurations. This was done deliberately so people like the author don’t shoot themselves in the foot. For an example, see which was merged many months after the Linux kernel disabled vector instructions. I believe OpenZFS re-enabled vector instructions with their own implementation of the kernel code that can no longer be used. The rest of the points I guess are true (or might be, eventually, sure). Please don’t use zfs-fuse, it’s long been abandoned and OpenZFS is better in every respect.

Out-of-tree and will never be mainlined:.

I think the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Please don’t pay attention to this article, it’s almost completely wrong.

Vdev eviction openzfs