Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:16:34 +0100 From: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> To: "Michael B. Eichorn" <ike@michaeleichorn.com> Cc: Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Periodic jobs triggering panics in 10.1 and 10.2 Message-ID: <56697B32.7050705@sorbs.net> In-Reply-To: <1449703798.4355.27.camel@michaeleichorn.com> References: <34FA7D40-8758-460D-AC14-20B21D2E3F8D@ebureau.com> <1449619470.31831.9.camel@michaeleichorn.com> <56682278.4040302@sorbs.net> <56683FC1.3050001@rlwinm.de> <5668AAB1.1080003@sorbs.net> <1449703798.4355.27.camel@michaeleichorn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael B. Eichorn wrote: > > I sorry, but I really don't get your point, PCBSD has shown a great > reason why zfs on root and on laptops/desktops is a good idea... boot > It has? As this is FreeBSD not PCBSD I must have missed that one... > environments. They have pretty much figured out how to use snapshots to > go from A-B ping-pong installations to A-B-C-D-E.... installations. I > am even aware of people using it to run Release and Current on the same > machine. Unfortunately at the moment the system requires GRUB, but > there is ongoing work to add the ability to the FreeBSD bootloader. > But it's not there yet... and would you consider this for someone who is not that technical? (Not that technical != non technical) > Further IIRC zfs send-receive has a history involving a developer who > wanted a better rsync for transfering his work to a laptop. As I said previously these are the features are the ones you listed as 'additional' (ie your after thoughts) > In addition > we have pretty much Moore's Lawed our way to the point where a new > laptop today can out spec a typical server from when ZFS was first > implemented. > I have yet to see a 6 spindle laptop... in fact I've yet to see a 3+ spindle laptop... I could be recalling wrongly but I'm pretty sure a number of emails have been seen on @freebsd.org lists that say, "don't use zfs on single spindle machines".. what I do know is that personally I have a machine with a hardware RAID and 16 drives... Initially I configured it with 1 large LD RAID6+HSP and put zfs on it (because I wanted to take advantage of the 'on the fly compression')... it's a backup store... and every scrub checksum errors were found - on files that had not been written to since the last scrub. I reconfigured it as 16 x single disk RAID0 drives - identical hardware, just a different config, put raidz2 across 15 drives and left one as a spare and now I don't have any errors except when a drive fails and even then it 'self heals'... > Hiding features because you 'can' shoot your foot off is hardly a > typical UNIXy way of thinking anyway. Not talking about 'hiding' features, even though this thread started with someone suggesting 'hiding' a bug by using -J and -j options for cron....! Look I'm being quite confrontational here in this message, there are a lot of people that don't like me here, and I don't like some of them myself so the feeling is very mutual, the point I'm trying to make is quite simple. I see it almost daily, FreeBSD people saying "install ZFS that'll solve your problems" and "ZFS it's the way forward" ... just the same way as they did with PkgNG etc... (not going to say anything on that, don't want an argument on that, this is not about 'that'..) ZFS has it's place, it is very good at some things, it brings features that people need. ZFS does not work (is not stable) on i386 without recompiling the kernel, but it is presented as an installation option. ZFS is compiled in by default in i386 kernels without the necessary option change to make it "stable". We have been told the kernel option change will never be put there by default. freebsd-update will remove/replace a kernel compiled with the option i386 is still a teir1 platform. 32bit laptops are still available for purchase at major retailers (eg: Bestbuy) I do not believe zfs should be default available when it is not stable on all teir1 platforms. I believe it should be fixed to be stable before its added as an installation option to teir1 platforms and if it cannot/willnot be fixed to 'stable' status then it should never make it into the defaults available... it should be limited to be in advanced installations where the people who know will probably know how to fix things or what to expect. ..anyhow my thoughts on the subject.. why I don't know because in the time it has taken me to write this, it occurred to me, I don't give a stuff really if people see FreeBSD as stable or unstable anymore. I put forward experiences and what I see and the questions/answers I have to deal with here and am usually ignored or argued with and I spend 30 minutes (or more) writing emails explaining stuff/defending myself to people who don't care and think (like me) they know best when I could actually be doing the work I get paid for. On that note I will leave you to considerand discard my thoughts as trivial and pointless and reply as such and get on with making my stuff better by actually listening to people who use it. -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56697B32.7050705>