Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:12:09 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? Message-ID: <20080104181208.GE42835@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <9bbcef730801040958t36e48c9fjd0fbfabd49b08b97@mail.gmail.com> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080104163352.GA42835@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <9bbcef730801040958t36e48c9fjd0fbfabd49b08b97@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 06:58:32PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 04/01/2008, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 12:42:28PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > As far as I know about the details of implementation and what would it > > > take to fix the problems, is it safe to assume ZFS will never become > > > stable during 7.x lifetime? > > > > I suppose that depends what you mean by stable. >=20 > My yardstick is currently "when a month goes by without anyone > complaining it crashed on him" :) I'm not sure any file system we support meets that criteria... > >It seems stable enough > > for a number of applications today. >=20 > This number is not so large. It seems to be easily crashed by rsync, > for example (speaking from my own experience, and also some of my > colleagues). I saw those crashes early one, but that's 90% of what the mirror server I'm running does and I'm not seeing them any more. I won't argue everything is fixed, but ZFS seems much more stable than it was. > > It's possible some of > > the issues of memory requirements won't be fixable in 7.x, but I don't > > think that's a given. >=20 > I listened to some of Pawel's talks and devsummit brainstormings and I > get the feeling *none* of the problems can be fixed in 7.x, especially > on i386. I'm just asking for more official confirmation. My understanding is that ZFS will never be a great choice on any 32-bit architecture without major changes Sun probably isn't interested in making. I think many of the problems people are reporting stem from that. > This is not a trivial question, since it involves deploying systems to > be maintained some years into the future - if ZFS will become stable > relatively shortly, it might be worth putting up with crashes, but if > not, there will be no near-future deployments of it. I don't think anyone is naive enough to say everything will be perfect by any given date. Reality doesn't work that way. People looking to deploy ZFS now will need to tolerate a certain amount of risk since it's never been part of a FreeBSD release (and it's still quite new even in Solaris). Issues being unfixable in 7.x are one of those risks, but that's always the case. -- Brooks --XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHfnb4XY6L6fI4GtQRAtx1AKDiNM7zC3HA80cWMEU52oSZN4JJJQCgkRw6 8HAXT16t60UZ9Lc+hV051JE= =jo9L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XuV1QlJbYrcVoo+x--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080104181208.GE42835>