Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:10:51 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? Message-ID: <478119AB.8050906@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <flr3iq$of7$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org> <flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org> <47810DE3.3050106@FreeBSD.org> <flr3iq$of7$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: >> Ivan Voras wrote: >>> Robert Watson wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet in the thread, but >>>> another thing worth taking into account in considering the stability >>>> of ZFS is whether or not Sun considers it a production feature in >>>> Solaris. Last I heard, it was still considered an experimental >>>> feature there as well. >>> >>> Last I heard, rsync didn't crash Solaris on ZFS :) >> >> [Citation needed] > > I can't provide citation about a thing that doesn't happen - you don't > hear things like "oh and yesterday I ran rsync on my Solaris with ZFS > and *it didn't crash*!" often. > > But, with some grains of salt taken, consider this Google results: > > * searching for "rsync crash solaris zfs": 790 results, most of them > obviously irrelevant > * searching for "rsync crash freebsd zfs": 10,800 results; a small > number of the results is from this thread, some are duplicates, but it's > a large number in any case. > > I feel that the number of Solaris+ZFS installations worldwide is larger > than that of FreeBSD+ZFS and they've had ZFS longer. Almost all Solaris systems are 64 bit. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?478119AB.8050906>