I've been using it happily since before the Greenbytes purchase. You're 
currently limited to pool version 28. I generally use it with external USB 
drives (single disk pools), but I have tested file based RAIDZ pools which 
worked fine.

The only caveat I will note, particularly for working with VMs (my primary use 
case as well) is that you can run into situations where the OS is RAM starved 
with the ARC filling up. I've run into cases where Fusion refused to boot up 
VMs claiming not enough memory after I was using another machine for a while. 
Ejecting the pool will generally clear out the ARC (allocated to the kernel) so 
that you can reinsert and then start the VM.

It's a full implementation as far as I can tell, including zfs send/recv so you 
can easily backup across the network without having the plugin your disks to 
the other server.

I'd put it in the reliable camp (at the very least more reliable that HFS+ or 
ExFAT on cheap 2.5" drives)



On 15 févr. 2013, at 17:08, "Edward Ned Harvey 
<opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote:

> Anybody using maczfs / ZEVO?  Have good or bad things to say, in terms of 
> reliability, performance, features?
> My main reason for asking is this:  I have a mac, I use Time Machine, and I 
> have VM's inside.  Time Machine, while great in general, has the limitation 
> of being unable to intelligently identify changed bits inside a VM file.  So 
> you have to exclude the VM from Time Machine, and you have to run backup 
> software inside the VM. 
> I would greatly prefer, if it's reliable, to let the VM reside on ZFS and use 
> zfs send to backup my guest VM's.
> I am not looking to replace HFS+ as the primary filesystem of the mac; 
> although that would be cool, there's often a reliability benefit to staying 
> on the supported, beaten path, standard configuration.  But if ZFS can be 
> used to hold the guest VM storage reliably, I would benefit from that.
zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to