On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:33:00 +0200 Pongrácz István <[email protected]> wrote:
> Summary > > I think using ZFS as filesystem has more potential than recent storage/backup > model used by pve 3.4 or 4.x. > > I wrote this "article" to try to push proxmox team to improve the system in a > way or give them a feedback, your direction is a good way :) > > I have a proxmox node, which is using zfs in such a way I described (except > btrfs) and that node is up an running for more than 657 days now. > uptime for a server <=> security or stability. Long uptimes also means a lot of active kernel bugs fixed in more resent kernels. For your claim of been able to recover a node from crash quickly as a consequence of using ZFS this can be easily achieved with the current default install of Proxmox when sticking to these three rules: 1) A node is simply used as runtime for VM's/CT's. 2) All virtual disks for VM's/CT's resides on shared storage. 3) Backups are stored on shared storage as well. Then to recover a node is simply a matter of reinstall from backup. -- Hilsen/Regards Michael Rasmussen Get my public GnuPG keys: michael <at> rasmussen <dot> cc http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xD3C9A00E mir <at> datanom <dot> net http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE501F51C mir <at> miras <dot> org http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE3E80917 -------------------------------------------------------------- /usr/games/fortune -es says: Hey, if pi == 3, and three == 0, does that make pi == 0? :-) -- Larry Wall in <[email protected]>
pgpZqulBVxPgM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ pve-user mailing list [email protected] http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
