Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 06/25/2012 08:00 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: Edward M wrote: That reply was not meant for you, so why do you care? If it wasn't meant for everyone on the list, why was it sent to the list? by accident. still learning how to use email client:-[ . once i noticed my emai

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

Edward M wrote: > That reply was not meant for you, so why do you care? If it wasn't meant for everyone on the list, why was it sent to the list? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ques

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 06/24/2012 04:23 PM, Adam Vande More wrote: On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Edward M > wrote: Dont email me privately. Don't be an ass. Standard list conventions allows for private email. If this is simply an individual case of not liking the person wh

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > One interesting feature of ZFS if it's block checksum: all reads and >> writes include block checksum, so it can easily detect situations where, >> for example, data is quietly corrupted by RAM. >> > > you

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 06/23/2012 10:38 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: last binary production ready, used version 14; i also found it to be stable Any opensource zfs pool verisons beyound that, i am not really sure about their stablity compared to UFS rock solid filesystem. No ZFS pool version can be as trus

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 06/23/2012 05:16 PM, John Levine wrote: Sorry, I misread my notes, 8.2 uses v 15, 8.3 uses v 28. R's, John yeah, I remember version 15 was really stable. Opensolaris 2009.06 last binary production ready, used version 14; i also found it to be stable Any opensource zfs pool ve

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

>> snafu on my part freebsd 8.3 also uses zfs pool version 28:-) > >No, 8.3 uses version 15. It's been quite stable for me. Sorry, I misread my notes, 8.2 uses v 15, 8.3 uses v 28. R's, John ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lis

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

> snafu on my part freebsd 8.3 also uses zfs pool version 28:-) No, 8.3 uses version 15. It's been quite stable for me. R's, John ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscr

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 06/23/2012 04:19 PM, Edward M wrote: On 06/21/2012 12:33 AM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: Now, I want to the same thing on 8.3 and wanted to know your opinion on ZFS stability. Is there any success story using ZFS in 24x7, large volume, heavy duty servers? Is there any other option other than ZFS to

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 06/21/2012 12:33 AM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: Now, I want to the same thing on 8.3 and wanted to know your opinion on ZFS stability. Is there any success story using ZFS in 24x7, large volume, heavy duty servers? Is there any other option other than ZFS to build larger than 2TB file systems?

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sat Jun 23 02:48:26 2012 > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:17:13 +0430 > From: Hooman Fazaeli > To: Wojciech Puchar > Cc: FreeBSD Questions > Subject: Re: Is ZFS production ready? > > > I meant, is it now possible to have >2

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

However, fsck'ing such large volumes will take considerable time if such a thing needs doing. There is the new "Soft-update plus Journaling" coming along with the advent of 9.x, which is supposed to ameliorate this. Not it is far from perfect. But fine to use it. Just DO full fsck every some ti

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

Hooman Fazaeli wrote: > > I meant, is it now possible to have >2TB FS with UFS? > Yes. The 2TB limitation so many are used to applies more to the tools than the UFS2 file system itself. UFS2 has a max volume size of 2^73, or 8 Zeta-Bytes. If you utilize the old Dos MBR scheme with old fdisk an

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

I meant, is it now possible to have >2TB FS with UFS? UFS2 is here since IMHO year 2005. Now the only problem is fsck time. actually IMHO fsck can be improved a lot but someone must have time and will to do this. if parallelism would be exploited on gstripe type(*) volumes then it should tak

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

I meant, is it now possible to have >2TB FS with UFS? On 6/21/2012 6:54 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. And it works fast. What options are there for >2TB f

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 11:50:42 2012 > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:47:30 +0200 (CEST) > From: Wojciech Puchar > To: Matthias Gamsjager > Cc: FreeBSD Questions > Subject: Re: Is ZFS production ready? > > > > > True but this applies a

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

Wojciech Puchar wrote:` > Subject: Re: Is ZFS production ready? > > stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. > And it works fast. Be sure to descrirbe how that is even _possible_, given that the OP needs/ wants "larger than

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 06:18:56 2012 > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:03:12 +0430 > From: Hooman Fazaeli > To: FreeBSD Questions > Subject: Is ZFS production ready? > > Dear community > > In the past, I built a 8TB ZFS log server on freebsd

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

OK, if you have 24 2-way mirrors and two drives in the same mirror fail then with UFS you lose the contents of that mirror. Other filesystems in the same box are fine. Restores from backups are going to be easy since the backups are probably arranged to be per-filesystem. true. i actually don't

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

This is a valid argument. Checksumming is used to detect cases where the disk or the disk controller return invalid data to the CPU. This can happen for any number of reasons and isn't that unlikely. "Unrecoverable read error" probabilities are high enough with common drives that you can reasonab

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

ZFS is technologically more advance than UFS/UFS2, so, if someone ask to me which filesystem should be use, my answer is ZFS. You can do on UFS the same on ZFS, but ZFS extend the functionality beyond "filesystem", that is a plus for IT today. I'm using ZFS for a public HTTP/FTP mirror pushing

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 6/21/12 11:21 AM, 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" Only after you, my man

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

___ 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" Only after you, my man, only after you. not yours. i'm not homose

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

21.06.2012 21:32, Wojciech Puchar пишет: >>> Agreed. Wojciech Puchar is in my 'probable troll' file at this point, >> >> Here too, http://berklix.com/~jhs/dots/.procmailrc.lists >> > very good. just block me, instead of performing aggresive replies and > personal attacks. > > > __

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

Agreed. Wojciech Puchar is in my 'probable troll' file at this point, Here too, http://berklix.com/~jhs/dots/.procmailrc.lists very good. just block me, instead of performing aggresive replies and personal attacks. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

> Agreed. Wojciech Puchar is in my 'probable troll' file at this point, Here too, http://berklix.com/~jhs/dots/.procmailrc.lists Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, & indent with

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 06/21/2012 00:33, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: > Dear community > > In the past, I built a 8TB ZFS log server on freebsd 7.4. > However, the system experienced instablility after long up times. > My main motive to use ZFS was UFS inability to support large > file systems. > > Now, I want to the same t

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

ZFS is superior to UFS. End of the history. There is no point in use old technology (UFS) when the new one can make the same as the older and better ? anyway there must be morons here like me that after observation conclude that older is far safer and better. But if you want "end of history

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 6/21/12 9:47 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: True but this applies as much to you. You think you know it all and that is quite the probdlem with you. And "discussing" with you is a true waste with this attittute. Even its free. so stop it. This mailing list isn't your blog. If you want to

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

ZFS is superior to UFS. End of the history. There is no point in use old technology (UFS) when the new one can make the same as the older and better ? Regards, El 21/06/12 11:31, Matthias Gamsjager escribió: On 21 jun. 2012, at 18:07, Wojciech Puchar

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

[...] My one note to the above would be to advise against using it for swap - unless you have enough RAM to make sure you never swap. It doesn't do well in that role, in my experience. (Though that was under a slightly earlier version.) I remember on SXCE running on my test Sun E420r serv

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

his interactions on several topics. ZFS is stable and tested, and works well if you have the resources. That means RAM as well as hard disks - and if you don't have the resources, most of ZFS's advantages wouldn't be coming into play anyway. I have seen no right. repeat it more times, as you

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

True but this applies as much to you. You think you know it all and that is quite the probdlem with you. And "discussing" with you is a true waste with this attittute. Even its free. so stop it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 2012-06-21 08:12, Евгений Лактанов wrote: 21.06.2012 15:52, Wojciech Puchar пишет: stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. And it works fast. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-q

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 21 jun. 2012, at 18:07, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >>> stupid answer to stupid question. >>> You never seen - but they do happens. >> >> In other topic you hammerd on fact and if someone ask you to deliver them >> its a stupid question. > just a proof it is a waste of time to explain things

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

> "Wojciech" == Wojciech Puchar writes: Wojciech> I ignore performance issues completely for now. An ironic line, given your complaints about clang. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consul

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

stupid answer to stupid question. You never seen - but they do happens. In other topic you hammerd on fact and if someone ask you to deliver them its a stupid question. just a proof it is a waste of time to explain things (FOR FREE) for people like you. You are free to make dangerous setups

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

Another important point: With 24 ZFS mirrors you'd have your data being striped across ALL the mirrors. This will yield much better performance. i though already after few mails that you can discuss things normally. But this reply just perfectly proves you didn't read more than maybe my las

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 21 jun. 2012, at 17:15, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> >> I do understand your setup but I dont have too agree that it is a good > > so i would repeat my question. > Assume you have 48 disks, in mirrored configuration (24 mirrors) and 480 > users with their data on them. > > Your solution wi

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:42:55 -0500, Wojciech Puchar wrote: And it is truly funny for me to know people do think this way. If you understood how ZFS commits data to disk you'd not be making these statements. Also, if you take snapshots you can just roll back if there is any weirdness a

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

I think it is incorrect to assume that a failure with ZFS that cannot be recovered could be recovered if you used UFS with fsck. i think it is incorrect to not read carefully. So explanation - ZFS failure NOT caused by disks failure cannot be usually recovered. But even if i am wrong at thi

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 21.06.2012 10:15, Wojciech Puchar wrote: I do understand your setup but I dont have too agree that it is a good so i would repeat my question. Assume you have 48 disks, in mirrored configuration (24 mirrors) and 480 users with their data on them. Your solution with ZFS - ZFS crashes or yo

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

I do understand your setup but I dont have too agree that it is a good so i would repeat my question. Assume you have 48 disks, in mirrored configuration (24 mirrors) and 480 users with their data on them. Your solution with ZFS - ZFS crashes or you get double disk failure. Assuming the latt

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > >>> >>> interesting idea but the options ZFS would give you are superior to this >> setup. >> > > Were you just unable to understand my setup or a reasons to do this? > > please reread former post and poss

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

With UFS2 you can use file systems up to 2^73 (8 ZB). The problem is not UFS, but the old tools used to format the disk like fdisk and bsdlabel. For big file systems you must use gpart. true. or not using anything at all (and put filesystem directly on whole device/mirror). The problem with

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

interesting idea but the options ZFS would give you are superior to this setup. Were you just unable to understand my setup or a reasons to do this? please reread former post and possibly ask again if you don't understand the reasons. I ignore performance issues completely for now. But

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

One interesting feature of ZFS if it's block checksum: all reads and writes include block checksum, so it can easily detect situations where, for example, data is quietly corrupted by RAM. you may be shocked but you are sometimes wrong. i already demostrated it and checksumming doesn't get any

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 07:55 -0500, wel...@excelsusphoto.com wrote: > On 21.06.2012 07:39, Dennis Glatting wrote: > > > > > Stable? Yes. Be sure you have up-to-date FreeBSD kernel and your HBA > > firmware is up-to-date. Generally I use LSI 9211 cards. > > > > Does the 9211 support JBOD (complete

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

At 16:13 21/06/2012, you wrote: On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. And it works fast. What options are there for >2TB file systems with UFS? With UFS2 you can use file systems up to 2^73 (8 ZB). The problem is not UFS, but the old to

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 06/21/2012 16:13, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. And it works fast. What options are there for >2TB file systems with UFS? this should not be a problem if you use GPT + gpart (which is the way to go nowa

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > >> answer yourself. >> >> >> Sorry but I don;t follow you right there. with 48 disks you would not >> mirror 24vs24. >> > > if i wasn't clear enough then i would it like that (with UFS), and > assuming disk

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

One interesting feature of ZFS if it's block checksum: all reads and writes include block checksum, so it can easily detect situations where, for example, data is quietly corrupted by RAM. This feature is very important for databases. On 06/21/2012 15:58, Matthias Gamsjager wrote: On Thu, Jun

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. And it works fast. What options are there for >2TB file systems with UFS? the same as for <2TB filesystems.

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

answer yourself. Sorry but I don;t follow you right there. with 48 disks you would not mirror 24vs24. if i wasn't clear enough then i would it like that (with UFS), and assuming disks are named disk0disk48, and that i have at least one more disk for system code, often acessed data etc

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. And it works fast. What options are there for >2TB file systems with UFS? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/lis

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > I really want to see your face when you fsck 48TB w/o ffs+j (since that is >> so young must be immature :S ) of data with the phone ring non stop with >> > > Even if ZFS would be the only filesystem in exis

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

I really want to see your face when you fsck 48TB w/o ffs+j (since that is so young must be immature :S ) of data with the phone ring non stop with Even if ZFS would be the only filesystem in existence i would make one per 2 disks (single mirror). No matter what's going on, what do you prefer

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

System 1: 32 cores, Interlagos, 64GB, 18TB RAIDz1 System 2: 64 cores, Interlagos, 128GB, 15TB RAIDz1 System 3: 8 cores, Bulldozer, 16GB, 27TB RAIDz2 what these systems do? (no details, just rough information) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing l

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On 21.06.2012 07:39, Dennis Glatting wrote: Stable? Yes. Be sure you have up-to-date FreeBSD kernel and your HBA firmware is up-to-date. Generally I use LSI 9211 cards. Does the 9211 support JBOD (complete plain disks, no RAID or single disk RAID mess)?

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 12:03 +0430, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: > Dear community > > In the past, I built a 8TB ZFS log server on freebsd 7.4. > However, the system experienced instablility after long up times. > My main motive to use ZFS was UFS inability to support large > file systems. > > Now, I wa

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > For my various OpenSource projects, I have deployed a 36TB file system >> which is fine and stable running 24/7. Additionally at home I use 4TB >> (2x 2TB) + 8TB (2x 4TB) on a machine with 4GB RAM this

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote: > Dear community > > In the past, I built a 8TB ZFS log server on freebsd 7.4. > However, the system experienced instablility after long up times. > My main motive to use ZFS was UFS inability to support large > file systems. > > Now, I want

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. And it works fast. The correct answer would be. I depends on the work load For different kinds of production workload it doesn't, aat least for me.

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

For my various OpenSource projects, I have deployed a 36TB file system which is fine and stable running 24/7. Additionally at home I use 4TB (2x 2TB) + 8TB (2x 4TB) on a machine with 4GB RAM this has been up for 3 years with minimum reboot! Good. There are some companies that make for living

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

21.06.2012 15:52, Wojciech Puchar пишет: > stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. > And it works fast. > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any ma

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Wojciech Puchar < woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. > And it works fast. > > The correct answer would be. I depends on the work load ___ freebsd-questions@freebs

Re: Is ZFS production ready?

stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty. And it works fast. ___ 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 production ready?

Hi, I think it is stable enough on FreeBSD. Someone actually posted quite a similar thread not a while ago.. Here'e a quick summary: For my various OpenSource projects, I have deployed a 36TB file system which is fine and stable running 24/7. Additionally at home I use 4TB (2x 2TB) + 8TB (

Is ZFS production ready?

Dear community In the past, I built a 8TB ZFS log server on freebsd 7.4. However, the system experienced instablility after long up times. My main motive to use ZFS was UFS inability to support large file systems. Now, I want to the same thing on 8.3 and wanted to know your opinion on ZFS stabi