Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 00:50:06 +0200 From: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> To: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> Cc: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best practice for high availability ZFS pool Message-ID: <726D88E6-A1DF-4E5A-ACFF-8A11E6EB3916@pingpong.net> In-Reply-To: <DE067239-8D5B-4B8A-8E2D-7EBD3E3B42F8@ultra-secure.de> References: <5E69742D-D2E0-437F-B4A9-A71508C370F9@FreeBSD.org> <284D58D1-1C62-4519-A46B-7D0E8326B86B@ultra-secure.de> <AF7C7C50-B435-48BA-8069-1AB85D2F2B0F@FreeBSD.org> <DE067239-8D5B-4B8A-8E2D-7EBD3E3B42F8@ultra-secure.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 17 maj 2016 kl. 00:47 skrev Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de>: >=20 >=20 >>> Am 17.05.2016 um 00:44 schrieb Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org>: >>>=20 >>=20 >> We already have an infrastructure based on ZFS, and I am not sure I do tr= ust ZFS on Linux? >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Wouldn=E2=80=99t start with a 20T pool on that one, TBH ;-) >=20 > There are probably a lot of quirks and workarounds needed that only those w= ho=E2=80=99ve run it for a long time are aware of (if they=E2=80=99re actual= ly aware of them at all). >=20 >=20 > That said, I=E2=80=99ve run into my own problems with zfs send now=E2=80=A6= .but only on 10.3. >=20 We are still 10.2. Are there, in your opinion, regressions in 10.3 for zfs s= end?=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?726D88E6-A1DF-4E5A-ACFF-8A11E6EB3916>