Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:08:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? Message-ID: <20080106170452.L105@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org> <flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, 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 :) My admittedly second-hand understanding is that ZFS shows similarly gratuitous memory use on both Mac OS X and Solaris. One advantage Solaris has is that it runs primarily on expensive 64-bit servers with lots of memory. Part of the problem on FreeBSD is that people run ZFS on sytems with 32-bit CPUs and a lot less memory. It could be that ZFS should be enforcing higher minimum hardware requirements to mount (i.e., refusing to run on systems with 32-bit address spaces or <4gb of memory and inadequate tuning). Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080106170452.L105>