Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:17:02 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: CZUCZY Gergely <gergely.czuczy@harmless.hu> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Thinking of using ZFS/FBSD for a backup system Message-ID: <48749E2E.40308@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080709123729.60d2431a@twoflower.in.publishing.hu> References: <bd9320b30807072315x105cf058tf9f952f0f5bb2a6a@mail.gmail.com> <20080708100701.57031cda@twoflower.in.publishing.hu> <bd9320b30807080131j5e0e02a4y3231d7bfa1738517@mail.gmail.com> <4873C4FA.2020004@FreeBSD.org> <20080708221327.5c1d0e92@mort.in.publishing.hu> <4873CF6C.7000205@FreeBSD.org> <20080708225449.1070252d@mort.in.publishing.hu> <4873F4E9.3040203@FreeBSD.org> <20080709074420.24df3be4@mort.in.publishing.hu> <20080709055645.GA40076@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20080709123729.60d2431a@twoflower.in.publishing.hu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
CZUCZY Gergely wrote: > "Stable ZFS" would mean, that these circumstances are cleared, and there's a > proven garantee (either mathematically) that it's _unable_ to panic due to this > memory allocation issue. I suppose you can choose to use this definition if you like, but it must be kind of terrifying to live in a world where all but the most trivial of programs are "unstable" and MIGHT CRASH AT ANY MOMENT OH GOD NO. While technically true, I don't think it's a functionally useful definition to equate "stable" with "proven to be perfect", so I won't continue to debate the point. ZFS is what it is, several of us have shown that it is possible to tune memory parameters to make it fit into a FreeBSD kernel, and users can either take that for what it's worth, or decide that ZFS is not for them. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48749E2E.40308>