Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 11/15/10 21:06, Chris Rees wrote: On 15 November 2010 19:59, Peter Boosten wrote: He's consistent in any case (a quick google search reveals this 2008 message): http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg192926.html Consistent, but still just spouting uninformed FUD. Actually, I don't see anything incorrect in the above archive post. As for specific problems with ZFS, I'm also pessimistic right now - it's enough to read the freebsd-fs @ freebsd.org and zfs-discuss @ opensolaris.org lists to see that there are frequent problems and outstanding issues. You can almost grep for people losing data on ZFS weekly. Compare this to the volume of complaints about UFS in both OSes (almost none). ZFS is young and ambitiously designed. We'll see if it grows up. As for FreeBSD's implementation, I think it will be "as good as it gets" in 9.0 if the import of ZFS v28 doesn't destabilize it. By this I mean that any problems left would not be FreeBSD's fault but ZFS's own fault. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 11/16/10 20:23, Adam Vande More wrote: On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: Actually, I don't see anything incorrect in the above archive post. I do. Cherry picking ZFS deficiencies without addressing the proper documented way to work around them or at even acknowledging it's possible to do so is FUD. It's not like traditional RAID doesn't have it's own set of gotcha's and proper usage environment. Well, you are also doing cherry picking of *good* features so I'd say there's no conceptual difference here :) NHF, I'm not attacking you; as with everything else, people need to test technologies they are going to use and decide if they are good enough. Dismissing the value of checksumming your data seems foolhardy to say the least. The place where silent data corruption most frequently occurs, in large archive type filesystems, also happens to be one of the prime usage candidates of RAIDZ. Now if only the default checksum wasn't so weak: http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=69655&tstart=30 http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6740597 There are no details about its "fixed" status so I think the problem is still there. (of course, stronger options are available, etc. - and it's better than nothing) As for specific problems with ZFS, I'm also pessimistic right now - it's enough to read the freebsd-fs @ freebsd.org and zfs-discuss @ opensolaris.org lists to see that there are frequent problems and outstanding issues. You can almost grep for people losing data on ZFS weekly. Compare this to the volume of complaints about UFS in both OSes (almost none). There are actually very few stories of ZFS/zpool loss on the FreeBSD list(some are misidentifications of issues like this: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2010-September/009417.html), another source I would point you to is http://forums.freebsd.org/. The single recent valid one I can find involves a pool on geli, but I will grant you that it happens at all is quite disconcerting. Yes, especially since GELI is very sensitive to corruption. But I'm also counting cases like the inability to replace a drive which failed, log device corruptions and similar things which will, if not result in a totally broken file system, result in a file system which is wedged in a way that requires it to be re-created. In many of those, though, it's not clear if the error is in ZFS or FreeBSD. UFS has it's own set of issues/limitations so regardless of what you pick make sure you're aware of them and take issues to address them before problems occur. Of course, UFS *is* old and "classical" in its implementation - it would be just as wrong to expect fancy features from UFS like to expect such time-tested stability from ZFS. And new technologies need time to settle down: there are still occasional reports of SUJ problems. Personally, I have encountered only stability issues and currently have only one server with ZFS in production (reduction from several of them about a year ago), but I'm constantly testing it in staging. If the v28 import doesn't destabilize it in 9, I'm going to give it another chance. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
RE: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
... Actually I find the basics of its design pretty simple (cow/txg/zil) and for that reason I think it is going to become very robust in the near future, if it isn't already. What is complex is the various journal and soft-updates code that traditional file systems use. But yes it has performance problems in some workloads and needs more cpu/ram than usual. ... All I know is the DOW is down almost 200 pts, so ZFS isn't a real priority for me right now. Novell v4+ FS was / is the best ever - period! If only they would make it OSS! Gary PS: Yes, I'm blowing on the flames... -Original Message- From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of App Deb Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:32 PM To: Wojciech Puchar Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Modulok Subject: Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time? On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > no. ZFS is not usable and will never be usable for anything more than a toy. > This is a result of that design. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" "This email is intended to be reviewed by only the intended recipient and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system." ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > no. ZFS is not usable and will never be usable for anything more than a toy. > This is a result of that design. Actually I find the basics of its design pretty simple (cow/txg/zil) and for that reason I think it is going to become very robust in the near future, if it isn't already. What is complex is the various journal and soft-updates code that traditional file systems use. But yes it has performance problems in some workloads and needs more cpu/ram than usual. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Ivan Voras wrote: > Actually, I don't see anything incorrect in the above archive post. > I do. Cherry picking ZFS deficiencies without addressing the proper documented way to work around them or at even acknowledging it's possible to do so is FUD. It's not like traditional RAID doesn't have it's own set of gotcha's and proper usage environment. Dismissing the value of checksumming your data seems foolhardy to say the least. The place where silent data corruption most frequently occurs, in large archive type filesystems, also happens to be one of the prime usage candidates of RAIDZ. > > As for specific problems with ZFS, I'm also pessimistic right now - it's > enough to read the freebsd-fs @ freebsd.org and zfs-discuss @ > opensolaris.org lists to see that there are frequent problems and > outstanding issues. You can almost grep for people losing data on ZFS > weekly. Compare this to the volume of complaints about UFS in both OSes > (almost none). > There are actually very few stories of ZFS/zpool loss on the FreeBSD list(some are misidentifications of issues like this: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2010-September/009417.html), another source I would point you to is http://forums.freebsd.org/. The single recent valid one I can find involves a pool on geli, but I will grant you that it happens at all is quite disconcerting. There have been a lot of other ZFS issues ranging from performance, NFS troubles, quirks on storage controllers not present when using UFS, to other as-yet unexplained oddities. Many of these are corner cases, and I think they have mostly been resolved. If you've happened to encouter one, I'm sure it's left a sour taste though. UFS has it's own set of issues/limitations so regardless of what you pick make sure you're aware of them and take issues to address them before problems occur. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
One problem I ran into is that the file sharing technologies in FreeBSD have not kept up; I consider NFSv4 a requirement for sanely sharing ZFS over a network, and FreeBSD's NFSv4 server is still under heavy development and not yet production-ready. That may not matter for a backup server, though. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 15/11/2010 20:33, krad wrote: > My gut feeling is no. I wouldn't put it on mission critical stuff yet. Its > not that I have had any major bad experiences (x fingers) but im not aware > of any major deployments of it in the wild. As a result I wouldnt feel safe > being the 1st 8) > > What I would advise is to think carefully about what you actually need. If > you dont really need zfs features, then fine go with ufs, as you can always > migrate in the future. However if the features are useful to you and of > enough of a benefit to justify I would advise going for a Solaris platform > of some kind. > > If you are doing it on a budget, go for openindiana, but if you have a some > budget, go for the safe option of solaris 10 u9. > I don't entirely agree with this. ZFS on FreeBSD is in good shape and suitable for /some/ mission critical uses IMHO. You will gain all the benefits of reliability, maintainability and flexibility that ZFS provides. However: * The versions of ZFS in RELEASE versions of FreeBSD aren't brilliantly performant: you want recent 8.1-STABLE or above if your need is for speed. * FreeBSD itself doesn't have good support for being an iSCSI provider, consequently the iSCSI related functions in ZFS are not enabled. Similarly SCSI-target mode is in need of a bit of love, and trying to use FreeBSD as a homebrew SAN over fibre channel doesn't really work. * ZFS (on any platform) is intrinsically slow for the sort of small random IOs generated by RDBMSes. On the other hand, the data integrity and update consistency guarantees are really good news if your Database needs stability and correctness more than speed. * The file synch-ing guarantees provided by ZFS are entirely dependent on the behaviour of the underlying hardware -- if your disk lies to the OS about having committed data to non-volatile storage then nothing can really be promised. Or, looked at from a different point of view: ZFS cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear: it works most effectively with server-grade SATA or SAS drives rather than commodity desktop hard drives. Personally, I've converted to using a ZFS mirror pair of drives for preference as my standard way to do a FreeBSD OS install for a general purpose server. Exceptions are mostly due to speed requirements. Once 8.2-RELEASE hits the shelves in January (well, approximately January) ZFS performance in RELEASE will be seen to have improved markedly, and I expect to be using ZFS pretty much exclusively for general purpose installs. On the other hand, if you need to build some sort of network file server, then OpenIndiana or Solaris would be better choices with ZFS, and are likely to remain better for some significant amount of time. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 15 November 2010 20:42, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Devin Teske wrote: > >> Sounds like FUD. >> >> Like the OP, I too am interested in the current state of ZFS. We've been >> following the threads as far as build 28, and I do indeed see positive >> improvement and continued development. However, is anyone that is >> actively involved in the project able to provide a snapshot opinion of >> the production readiness of ZFS for enterprise deployment? >> >> If the opinion is that ZFS is not ready for production, are there any >> technical explanations as to the efficacy or lack thereof rather than >> the above philosophical FUD which implores the OP to pour over massive >> archives (which can paint an inverse picture because the archives are >> usually filled with a higher number of issues than success stories -- >> which is true of nearly ANY mailing-list)? >> > > You'll need to go over to freebsd-fs@ if you want a technical discussion. > All you'll get here is meaningless opinionated philosophical gibber with > little to no basis in reality. > > > > -- > Adam Vande More > true, but well all know that politics influence our jobs and lives far more than the absolute truth, so you cant just ignore it unfortunately. You get a failure of some kind, then some clueless suit does some googling, puts 1 and 2 together and comes up with 7, and suddenly your in a hard place justifying your choices. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Devin Teske wrote: > Sounds like FUD. > > Like the OP, I too am interested in the current state of ZFS. We've been > following the threads as far as build 28, and I do indeed see positive > improvement and continued development. However, is anyone that is > actively involved in the project able to provide a snapshot opinion of > the production readiness of ZFS for enterprise deployment? > > If the opinion is that ZFS is not ready for production, are there any > technical explanations as to the efficacy or lack thereof rather than > the above philosophical FUD which implores the OP to pour over massive > archives (which can paint an inverse picture because the archives are > usually filled with a higher number of issues than success stories -- > which is true of nearly ANY mailing-list)? > You'll need to go over to freebsd-fs@ if you want a technical discussion. All you'll get here is meaningless opinionated philosophical gibber with little to no basis in reality. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 15 November 2010 20:10, Devin Teske wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 20:33 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > >> > > >> ___ > > >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > > >> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > >> > > > > > > > > > please elaborate > > look at archives. i really don't want to repeat the same many times. > > And anyone that actually have clue about what is computer, disk drive, > > reliability and algorithms and can think - after reading how ZFS is > > designed will understand that. > > > > Sounds like FUD. > > Like the OP, I too am interested in the current state of ZFS. We've been > following the threads as far as build 28, and I do indeed see positive > improvement and continued development. However, is anyone that is > actively involved in the project able to provide a snapshot opinion of > the production readiness of ZFS for enterprise deployment? > > If the opinion is that ZFS is not ready for production, are there any > technical explanations as to the efficacy or lack thereof rather than > the above philosophical FUD which implores the OP to pour over massive > archives (which can paint an inverse picture because the archives are > usually filled with a higher number of issues than success stories -- > which is true of nearly ANY mailing-list)? > -- > Cheers, > Devin Teske > > -> CONTACT INFORMATION <- > Business Solutions Consultant II > FIS - fisglobal.com > 510-735-5650 Mobile > 510-621-2038 Office > 510-621-2020 Office Fax > 909-477-4578 Home/Fax > devin.te...@fisglobal.com > > -> LEGAL DISCLAIMER <- > This message contains confidential and proprietary information > of the sender, and is intended only for the person(s) to whom it > is addressed. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any > other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > message in error, please notify the e-mail sender immediately, > and delete the original message without making a copy. > > -> FUN STUFF <- > -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- > Version 3.1 > GAT/CS d(+) s: a- C++() UB$ P++() L++() !E--- W++ N? o? K- > w O > M+ V- PS+ PE Y+ PGP- t(+) 5? X+(++) R>++ tv(+) b+(++) DI+(++) D(+) G+>++ > e>+ h > r>++ y+ > --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- > http://www.geekcode.com/ > > -> END TRANSMISSION <- > > My gut feeling is no. I wouldn't put it on mission critical stuff yet. Its not that I have had any major bad experiences (x fingers) but im not aware of any major deployments of it in the wild. As a result I wouldnt feel safe being the 1st 8) What I would advise is to think carefully about what you actually need. If you dont really need zfs features, then fine go with ufs, as you can always migrate in the future. However if the features are useful to you and of enough of a benefit to justify I would advise going for a Solaris platform of some kind. If you are doing it on a budget, go for openindiana, but if you have a some budget, go for the safe option of solaris 10 u9. It all really depends on your particular circumstances. A few tips put the os on its own zpool and the data on its own. That way its fairly easy to migrate to another os in the future. go big on ram, the more the better go for more cores rather than core speed, as zfs will benefit a lot from more threads (it was designed to run on coolthread archs which have 128+ virt cpus). Also enable hyperthreading if on intel look at using ssd for l2arc if you need performance, or are using dedup ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 15 nov 2010, at 20:37, Chris Rees wrote: > On 15 November 2010 19:33, Wojciech Puchar wrote: ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to " freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >>> >>> >>> please elaborate >> >> look at archives. i really don't want to repeat the same many times. >> And anyone that actually have clue about what is computer, disk drive, >> reliability and algorithms and can think - after reading how ZFS is designed >> will understand that. > > When did you ever 'repeat' that in the first place? Can you provide a > link, I don't recall seeing anyone say that ZFS is a toy. He's consistent in any case (a quick google search reveals this 2008 message): http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg192926.html -- Peter Boosten http://www.boosten.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 15 November 2010 19:59, Peter Boosten wrote: > > On 15 nov 2010, at 20:37, Chris Rees wrote: > > On 15 November 2010 19:33, Wojciech Puchar > wrote: > > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > > freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > > > > please elaborate > > > look at archives. i really don't want to repeat the same many times. > > And anyone that actually have clue about what is computer, disk drive, > > reliability and algorithms and can think - after reading how ZFS is > designed > > will understand that. > > > When did you ever 'repeat' that in the first place? Can you provide a > link, I don't recall seeing anyone say that ZFS is a toy. > > > He's consistent in any case (a quick google search reveals this 2008 > message): > > http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg192926.html > > -- > Peter Boosten > http://www.boosten.org > > > > there may be some technical merits in his analysis. however I have been using zfs in production environments for a few years and know it scales very well. Admittedly its in a solaris environment not BSD, but then he is on about the algorithms not the CPU architecture etc. In my experience the performance is good on both intel and sparc enviroments. The more memory and CPU the better as it is resource hungry. But then again it is doing a lot more sophisticated stuff than plain old UFS. From an administration point of view its very easy to use (especially compared to solstice and vinum) and has a lot of cool features, that after a while you find yourself wondering how you managed without them. Having said all that, it remains on whether it will stay the course. I doubt it will be around as long as ufs, as something better will come along in the future I suspect (not convinced on btrfs yet), but one thing is for sure, its set a new benchmark for filesystems ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 15 November 2010 20:10, Devin Teske wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 20:33 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >> >> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >> >> >> > >> > >> > please elaborate >> look at archives. i really don't want to repeat the same many times. >> And anyone that actually have clue about what is computer, disk drive, >> reliability and algorithms and can think - after reading how ZFS is >> designed will understand that. >> > > Sounds like FUD. > > Like the OP, I too am interested in the current state of ZFS. We've been > following the threads as far as build 28, and I do indeed see positive > improvement and continued development. However, is anyone that is > actively involved in the project able to provide a snapshot opinion of > the production readiness of ZFS for enterprise deployment? > > If the opinion is that ZFS is not ready for production, are there any > technical explanations as to the efficacy or lack thereof rather than > the above philosophical FUD which implores the OP to pour over massive > archives (which can paint an inverse picture because the archives are > usually filled with a higher number of issues than success stories -- > which is true of nearly ANY mailing-list)? > -- > Cheers, > Devin Teske I'm afraid that we can rely on Wojciech to constantly recommend that you go back to using technology from 20 years ago, because keeping up with anything current scares him, and he can't be bothered to research anything properly, instead making sweeping statements about things he knows little about. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 20:33 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> > >> ___ > >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > >> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > >> > > > > > > please elaborate > look at archives. i really don't want to repeat the same many times. > And anyone that actually have clue about what is computer, disk drive, > reliability and algorithms and can think - after reading how ZFS is > designed will understand that. > Sounds like FUD. Like the OP, I too am interested in the current state of ZFS. We've been following the threads as far as build 28, and I do indeed see positive improvement and continued development. However, is anyone that is actively involved in the project able to provide a snapshot opinion of the production readiness of ZFS for enterprise deployment? If the opinion is that ZFS is not ready for production, are there any technical explanations as to the efficacy or lack thereof rather than the above philosophical FUD which implores the OP to pour over massive archives (which can paint an inverse picture because the archives are usually filled with a higher number of issues than success stories -- which is true of nearly ANY mailing-list)? -- Cheers, Devin Teske -> CONTACT INFORMATION <- Business Solutions Consultant II FIS - fisglobal.com 510-735-5650 Mobile 510-621-2038 Office 510-621-2020 Office Fax 909-477-4578 Home/Fax devin.te...@fisglobal.com -> LEGAL DISCLAIMER <- This message contains confidential and proprietary information of the sender, and is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the e-mail sender immediately, and delete the original message without making a copy. -> FUN STUFF <- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version 3.1 GAT/CS d(+) s: a- C++() UB$ P++() L++() !E--- W++ N? o? K- w O M+ V- PS+ PE Y+ PGP- t(+) 5? X+(++) R>++ tv(+) b+(++) DI+(++) D(+) G+>++ e>+ h r>++ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- http://www.geekcode.com/ -> END TRANSMISSION <- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 15 November 2010 19:59, Peter Boosten wrote: > He's consistent in any case (a quick google search reveals this 2008 > message): > http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg192926.html Consistent, but still just spouting uninformed FUD. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 15 November 2010 19:33, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >>> >>> ___ >>> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >>> freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >>> >> >> >> please elaborate > > look at archives. i really don't want to repeat the same many times. > And anyone that actually have clue about what is computer, disk drive, > reliability and algorithms and can think - after reading how ZFS is designed > will understand that. When did you ever 'repeat' that in the first place? Can you provide a link, I don't recall seeing anyone say that ZFS is a toy. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to " freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" please elaborate look at archives. i really don't want to repeat the same many times. And anyone that actually have clue about what is computer, disk drive, reliability and algorithms and can think - after reading how ZFS is designed will understand that. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
On 15 November 2010 08:28, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> 1) Is ZFS as of 8.1 Release considered to be ready for mission critical? >> > > no. ZFS is not usable and will never be usable for anything more than a > toy. This is a result of that design. > > use UFS if you want something you can trust > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > please elaborate ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time?
1) Is ZFS as of 8.1 Release considered to be ready for mission critical? no. ZFS is not usable and will never be usable for anything more than a toy. This is a result of that design. use UFS if you want something you can trust ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Is ZFS ready for prime time?
List, I'm ready to build a backup server and have two questions... 1) Is ZFS as of 8.1 Release considered to be ready for mission critical? 2) If I put ZFS on top of geli, will this, in any way, (other than performance) impair ZFS's features? For example would stuff like the ability to self heal and what not, still work? As I understand it, I can just treat a geli like a generic block device, right? Thanks! -Modulok- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
