ZFS How Feasible Is Using ZFS On A 32 GB eMMC Card?

Hi guys! :3 I was wondering about something... I tried installing 12.0 (and failed once again) to replace Xubuntu on the notorious ASUS X205TA. :( But I still want to use ZFS. Were it not for wanting ZFS, this thread would be elsewhere Online. :) I know how to install it, but my question is this: is ZFS worth using on such a small Drive, or should I stick with what I have? ZFS is really cool... :) Thanks for any help guys. :)
 
In general it's safe to assume eMMC is the same as an SD card, just with more data lines. If ZFS is feasible to use on an SD card, it should be safe to use on an eMMC.
However, I do not have the answer to the question of whether it's feasible on an SD card but I would sure like to know the answer as well.
 
In general it's safe to assume eMMC is the same as an SD card, just with more data lines. If ZFS is feasible to use on an SD card, it should be safe to use on an eMMC.
However, I do not have the answer to the question of whether it's feasible on an SD card but I would sure like to know the answer as well.
Well, only one way to find out... :) I heard you can use GRUB to boot Operating Systems with 64 Bit Bootloaders on a 32 Bit UEFI System. I plan on getting another of this ASUS, so when I do, THIS one will probably be a FreeBSD Server with ZFS and all. :) I'll hopefully have the answer then, as by then, things might have improved with eMMC. :D
 
The worst thing that probably can happen is disappointing slow performance. And if that happens, then have a look at iostat -x 1. There are columns ms/w ms/o ms/t qlen, and when these get big, that's the problem.
 
What are the alternatives?

You can get a faster and bigger storage device. That seems unrealistic in this case.

You can use a traditional file system (like UFS or FAT). Would that have significant advantages? I doubt it, although it is possible. Here's why. ZFS has many interesting features, like being an appending or log based file system (it tends to not overwrite things in place), and implementing CRCs on the data, which are stored in on-disk metadata (its ability to implement RAID within the file system layer is not relevant here, since the OP has only one device). These are all really good things, but they also imply that the IO pattern of ZFS is different from traditional file systems. When I say "IO pattern" I mean IO sizes, sequentiality, random seeks, direction and size of seeks. That different IO pattern might work better on eMMC, or it might work worse. I don't know enough about the FTL (flash translation layer) that's used on eMMC chips to make any prediction here.

My suggestion: Try ZFS, and see what happens. If the performance is appropriate for your use (for your workload), then just go with it. ZFS is nearly universally a better file system. If the performance is not good enough, then try a traditional file system, and check whether it gives you better or worse performance.
 
The worst thing that probably can happen is disappointing slow performance. And if that happens, then have a look at iostat -x 1. There are columns ms/w ms/o ms/t qlen, and when these get big, that's the problem.
Ah, alright. :D Those are some verbose Commands! :) Also, is that a dog in your Profile Pic??! XD
 
What are the alternatives?

You can get a faster and bigger storage device. That seems unrealistic in this case.

You can use a traditional file system (like UFS or FAT). Would that have significant advantages? I doubt it, although it is possible. Here's why. ZFS has many interesting features, like being an appending or log based file system (it tends to not overwrite things in place), and implementing CRCs on the data, which are stored in on-disk metadata (its ability to implement RAID within the file system layer is not relevant here, since the OP has only one device). These are all really good things, but they also imply that the IO pattern of ZFS is different from traditional file systems. When I say "IO pattern" I mean IO sizes, sequentiality, random seeks, direction and size of seeks. That different IO pattern might work better on eMMC, or it might work worse. I don't know enough about the FTL (flash translation layer) that's used on eMMC chips to make any prediction here.

My suggestion: Try ZFS, and see what happens. If the performance is appropriate for your use (for your workload), then just go with it. ZFS is nearly universally a better file system. If the performance is not good enough, then try a traditional file system, and check whether it gives you better or worse performance.
Yeah, the consensus seems to be: either ditch it for this eMMC Laptop, or give it a go. After all, ZFS and FreeBSD are not Windows, so it's not as hard on the Hardware. ;) Well, if I can ever get FreeBSD on this thing, I'll let you all know. Thanks! :D
 
Hm hm... I might suggest using wikipedia, the english version, and start reading, carefully, word by word (like the way one should read release-notes, but most people don't).
 
Hm hm... I might suggest using wikipedia, the english version, and start reading, carefully, word by word (like the way one should read release-notes, but most people don't).
Well, if you say so. :) Yeah, I'm guilty of that... ;)
 
Well then, if You do so, You will find already in the first line the nice word "pigface", which just perfectly describes my attitude (and yes, I'm guilty of that ;) ).
 
Top