> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:40 PM, devsk > <funt...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Ben Miles > >> <merloc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > What supporting applications are there on Ubuntu > >> for RAIDZ? > >> > >> None. Ubuntu doesn't officially support ZFS. > >> > >> You can kind of make it work using the ZFS-FUSE > >> project. But it's not > >> stable, nor recommended. > > > > I have been using zfs-fuse on my home server for a > long time now and its rock solid. Its as stable and > usable as opensolaris build 143 I am using on > opensolaris. Yeah, write performance sucks but I do > not care about seq write performance that much. There > may be some inertial Linuxy/Fusy quirks around it as > well but most have been ironed out in 0.6.9. > > > > I have successfully exported and imported pools > from/to Opensolaris/Linux managed pools. No issues at > all. > > > > Just curious: have you tried 0.6.9 release of > zfs-fuse? You should join the google group of > zfs-fuse and someone can help u along. > > (You need to fix your quoting as I'm not listed, and > I'm the one who > made the remarks about zfs-fuse instability.) > > zfs-fuse 0.6.0 compiled from source, running on > 64-bit Debian 5.0, > using Linux kernel 2.6.26, using ZFS v22. > > We were testing dedupe to see how it would affect our > data storage > once it hits FreeBSD. We could not keep the test > server up and > running for more than 3-4 days at a time. > > 8 GB of RAM, 12 500 GB SATA harddrives, 2x dual-core > AMD CPUs. All > the same hardware as our FreeBSD storage servers. > > Running a single rsync stream from FreeBSD to Linux > would wedge the > box. Pulling a drive to see how the failure modes > work would wedge > the box. Booting without a drive would wedge the > box. Basically, > anything except slow writes would cause errors in ZFS > and wedge the > box. Definitely not a hardware problem as this box > was used > previously as a VM host, and everything runs fine > when zfs-fuse is > disabled. > > We gave up on it after a couple of weeks. Sure, the > dedupe numbers > looked great (we can't wait for FreeBSD to get > ZFSv20+). But the > zfs-fuse system was just too unstable to be usable > for even simple > testing.
I did not get this email for some reason, Freddie. So, I am seeing it just now. zfs-fuse-0.6.9 is a different beast compared to 0.6.0. There are tonnes of fixes in zfs-fuse code and in zfs which are now part of 0.6.9. I think it may be worthwhile to invest a day and do the experiment again with 0.6.9. I have been very happy with dedup on my backup (which stores data from all my machines, and hence has lot of duplication). Dedup and compression combined saves me about 35% on my box (It is a i7 920 with 12GB RAM). In OS, I think there is a SMF tie up to handle the device removal/addition. The same is handled through a script in 0.6.9. A decent script which can handle hot spares comes with the install. You can of course change it to do whatever you want. -devsk -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
