No, I don't. Or, I should say, only if performance were the sole/primary concern, in which case one would not choose ZFS.
However, if ZFS is the primary/sole concern (or, at least, performance is not), then you are comparing apples to oranges by comparing the performance of ZFS on FreeNAS to RAID0 on Ubuntu.
An appropriate performance comparision – when choosing ZFS – would be to compare a tuned FreeNAS solution to a tuned OpenSolaris solution, since those are comparable. Perhaps even Mac OS X (though I am not 100% positive it's a kernel filesystem there, I believe it is). You can't even do a similar comparison with ZFS on Linux, since OSol/FreeBSD implement ZFS in kernel, but Linux does not.
And I disagree with your statement about ZFS stability. It is pretty darn stable at this point. Yes, perhaps, it is more likely there is a bug in ZFS than in other filesystems. Which if we all adhered to that and never tried new things, we would have never moved beyond FAT and other more primitive filesystems. It is worthwhile to make sure that, whatever you are doing, you have a backup/safety net to cover such possible failures. I do.
hua_qiu, I appreciate you like speed. I do as well, and certainly I would like to accept advice on making my NAS faster and provide my own experiences on what I have done... but within the requirements of my project. Your repeated suggestion to move to Ubuntu does not help in that respect.
I'd certainly enjoy reading about your experiences with Ubuntu and how you've managed to get the high speeds that you have (in another thread). I don't doubt I would learn a thing or two, but simply telling us we're wrong to want ZFS and/or FreeNAS because your NAS blows it out of the water does nothing. I completely recognize your NAS is awesomely fast. But your setup does only a little to accomplish the goals I set out to do.
Last edited:
