Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

2012-05-03 Thread Richard Jacobsen
Hi Paul, I have been testing ZoL for a while now (somewhere around a year?) on two separate machines: 1) dual Socket 771 Xeon , 8GB ECC RAM, 12 Seagate 1TB ES.2 HD (2x6 disk raidz2), ubuntu oneiric, with the zfs-native/stable PPA 2) Intel Xeon CPU E31120, 8GB ECC RAM, 4 x 400GB WD RE2 ( 1 4

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

2012-04-25 Thread Ray Van Dolson
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 05:48:57AM -0700, Paul Archer wrote: This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but recently several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable for production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course) rather than Linux with ZoL.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

2012-04-25 Thread Richard Elling
On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Archer wrote: This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but recently several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable for production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course) rather than Linux with ZoL. I'm

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

2012-04-25 Thread Paul Archer
9:59am, Richard Elling wrote: On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Archer wrote: This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but recently several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable for production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

2012-04-25 Thread Richard Elling
On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Paul Archer wrote: 9:59am, Richard Elling wrote: On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Archer wrote: This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but recently several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

2012-04-25 Thread Jordan Schwartz
To put it slightly differently, if I used ZoL in production, would I be likely to experience performance or stability problems? I saw one team revert from ZoL (CentOS 6) back to ext on some backup servers for an application project, the killer was stat times (find running slow etc.), perhaps

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

2012-04-25 Thread Stefan Ring
I saw one team revert from ZoL (CentOS 6) back to ext on some backup servers for an application project, the killerĀ  was stat times (find running slow etc.), perhaps more layer 2 cache could have solved the problem, but it was easier to deploy ext/lvm2. But stat times (think directory

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

2012-04-25 Thread Paul Archer
To put it slightly differently, if I used ZoL in production, would I be likely to experience performance or stability problems? I saw one team revert from ZoL (CentOS 6) back to ext on some backup servers for an application project, the killerĀ  was stat times (find running slow etc.), perhaps

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

2012-04-25 Thread Paul Archer
9:08pm, Stefan Ring wrote: Sorry for not being able to contribute any ZoL experience. I've been pondering whether it's worth trying for a few months myself already. Last time I checked, it didn't support the .zfs directory (for snapshot access), which you really don't want to miss after getting

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

2012-04-25 Thread Nico Williams
As I understand it LLNL has very large datasets on ZFS on Linux. You could inquire with them, as well as http://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinux.org/group/zfs-discuss/topics?pli=1 . My guess is that it's quite stable for at least some use cases (most likely: LLNL's!), but that may not be yours.