>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 more layer 2 cache could have solved the problem, but it was easier to deploy ext/lvm2. The source filesystems were ext so zfs send/rcv was not an option. You may want to check with the ZoL project about where there development is with respect to performance, I heard that the focus was on stability. Jordan On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Paul Archer <p...@paularcher.org> 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 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. >> >> True. At my last job, we were used to researchers asking for individual > 4-5TB filesystems, and 1-2TB increases in size. When I left, there was over > a 100TB online (in '07). > > > > 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. >> >> The point of a clustered filesystem was to be able to spread our data > out among all nodes and still have access from any node without having to > run NFS. Size of the data set (once you get past the point where you can > replicate it on each node) is irrelevant. > > > > > 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 which >> 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 >> > > I understand the 80/20 rule. But this doesn't really answer the > question(s). If there weren't any major differences among operating > systems, the project probably would have been done long ago. > > To put it slightly differently, if I used ZoL in production, would I be > likely to experience performance or stability problems? Or would it be > lacking in features that I would likely need? > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list email@example.com http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss