I have used ZFS extensively at home and at work for the last 5 years. My
advice is don't use ZFS on linux.
The fuse port is slow and you don't get some of the native OS features
of ZFS. I also can't speak to it's reliability. There is also a kernel
module built by 3rd party developers which works but is unreliable
(www.zfsonlinux.org). I tried it recently and it worked great for about
3 weeks at which time it started causing kernel panics on CentOS 6.2. I
was also unable to mount the filesystem as it was stuck trying to do
something with the ZIL. In short, ZFS with linux is a bad idea.
If you want ZFS I suggest Solaris proper or FreeBSD. I have about 35TB
of deduped data on a FreeBSD ZFS filer @work on generic hardware which
is used for backups.
I've also been running with a bunch of WD caviar greens at home on my
personal media server for 3 years with ZFS on FreeBSD. The only problem
I ran into was I had to run a utility to stop the drives from parking
the drive heads when idle. I had a disk failure and when I pulled the
smart data for my drives I noticed that the load-cycle count was over
half a million for the drives even though they were only a few months
old. I guess the WD firmware by default parks the heads when the disk is
idle for more than a few seconds, when ZFS goes to flush the ZIL to disk
it causes the heads to unpark. Once I ran the little WD dos util to
disable that "feature" it fixed the issue and it may not be an issue on
newer WD Greens.
If you must use Linux I suggest XFS instead of ZFS. I've used XFS on
linux for a long time and it's been quite reliable. My previous employer
has many tens of petabytes of storage on Linux/XFS without issue.
On 26/03/2012 12:08 PM, Shawn wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe FUSE is a viable option in
multi-user settings. I was looking at using sshfs to provide a network
share until I read that Fuse does not support file locking properly and
therefore could encounter problems when a file is being written to from
multiple sources (like say, two network users). Of course, I don't have
the web page handy where I found this either... sorry. The same document
recommended using CIFS or NFS instead. That may be old info though, so
do your homework regarding FUSE if you are looking at it.
Shawn
On 12-03-26 11:50 AM, Gustin Johnson wrote:
I do not consider FUSE or relying on a Ubuntu PPA to be a solution. The
performance penalty you pay with FUSE pretty much negates any advantage
any file system may have (except of course sshfs and other slow WAN FUSE
based file systems). The third option of building it myself is no
longer viable.
_______________________________________________
clug-talk mailing list
clug-talk@clug.ca
http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php)
**Please remove these lines when replying
_______________________________________________
clug-talk mailing list
clug-talk@clug.ca
http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php)
**Please remove these lines when replying
