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.
> I'm working on a project at work involving a large(-ish) amount of
> data, about 5TB, working its way up to 12-15TB eventually, spread
> among a dozen or so nodes. There may or may not be a clustered
> filesystem involved (probably gluster if we use anything). I've been
> looking at ZoL as the primary filesystem for this data. We're a Linux
> shop, so I'd rather not switch to FreeBSD, or any of the
> Solaris-derived distros--although I have no problem with them, I just
> don't want to introduce another OS into the mix if I can avoid it.
> So, the actual questions are:
> Is ZoL really not ready for production use?
> If not, what is holding it back? Features? Performance? Stability?
> If not, then what kind of timeframe are we looking at to get past
> whatever is holding it back?
I can't comment directly on experiences with ZoL as I haven't used it,
but it does seem to be under active development. That can be a good
thing or a bad thing. :)
I for one would be hesitant to use it for anything production based
solely on the "youngness" of the effort.
That said, might be worthwhile to check out the ZoL mailing lists and
bug reports to see what types of issues the early adopters are running
into and whether or not they are showstoppers for you or you are
willing to accept the risks.
For your size requierements and your intent to use Gluster, it sounds
like ext4 or xfs would be entirely suitable and are obviously more
"mature" on Linux at this point.
Regardless, curious to hear which way you end up going and how things
zfs-discuss mailing list