Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:11:58 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is ZFS ready for prime time? Message-ID: <ibu3fa$n07$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTineuYhKttwp6ak5onQMJLea_cj8=E7tBj=4wZjN@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTikCnCHF3wa257LejpHdW-%2BSH49_FgwmegwOFS2c@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011150927020.32766@tensor.gdynia.pl> <AANLkTimTzAoUO-9NqW6vcePU2CMUo-on0x=gOEaU%2BkZu@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1011152032030.78383@tensor.gdynia.pl> <AANLkTi=Nrboc6M=pvhXhotrM%2BZeiG5_ghKnQrGArKL3U@mail.gmail.com> <84607C0F-183F-455A-B37A-B08030C01A9D@boosten.org> <AANLkTineuYhKttwp6ak5onQMJLea_cj8=E7tBj=4wZjN@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/15/10 21:06, Chris Rees wrote: > On 15 November 2010 19:59, Peter Boosten<peter@boosten.org> wrote: > >> He's consistent in any case (a quick google search reveals this 2008 >> message): >> http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-questions@freebsd.org/msg192926.html > > Consistent, but still just spouting uninformed FUD. Actually, I don't see anything incorrect in the above archive post. As for specific problems with ZFS, I'm also pessimistic right now - it's enough to read the freebsd-fs @ freebsd.org and zfs-discuss @ opensolaris.org lists to see that there are frequent problems and outstanding issues. You can almost grep for people losing data on ZFS weekly. Compare this to the volume of complaints about UFS in both OSes (almost none). ZFS is young and ambitiously designed. We'll see if it grows up. As for FreeBSD's implementation, I think it will be "as good as it gets" in 9.0 if the import of ZFS v28 doesn't destabilize it. By this I mean that any problems left would not be FreeBSD's fault but ZFS's own fault.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ibu3fa$n07$1>