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 working on a project at work involving a large(-ish) amount of data, 
> about 5TB, working its way up to 12-15TB

This is pretty small by today's standards.  With 4TB disks, that is only 3-4 
disks + redundancy.

> 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 wouldn't dream of building a clustered file system that small. Maybe when you 
get into the
multiple-PB range, then it might make sense.

> 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?

The computer science behind ZFS is sound. But it was also developed for Solaris 
is quite different than Linux under the covers. So the Linux and other OS ports 
have issues
around virtual memory system differences and fault management differences. This 
is the
classic "getting it to work is 20% of the effort, getting it to work when all 
else is failing is
the other 80%" case.
 -- richard

ZFS Performance and Training

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to