On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:10:45PM +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 01/07/2013 20:04 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: > > People are operating with the belief that "ZFS just > > works", when reality shows "it works until it doesn't" > > That reality applies to everything that a man creates with a purpose to work. > I am not sure why you are so over-focused on ZFS. > Please stop spreading FUD. Thank you.
The issue is that ZFS on FreeBSD is still young compared to other filesystems (specifically UFS). Nothing is perfect, but FFS/UFS tends to have a significantly larger number of bugs worked out of it to the point where people can use it without losing sleep (barring the SUJ stuff, don't get me started). I have the same concerns over other things, like ext2fs and fusefs for that matter -- but this thread is about a ZFS-related crash, and that's why I'm "over-focused" on it. A heterogeneous (UFS+ZFS) setup, rather than homogeneous (ZFS-only), results in a system where an admin can upgrade + boot into single-user and perform some tasks to test/troubleshoot; if the ZFS layer is broken, it doesn't mean an essentially useless box. That isn't FUD, that's just the stage we're at right now. I'm aware lots of people have working ZFS-exclusive setups; like I said, "works great until it doesn't". So, how do you kernel guys debug a problem in this environment: - ZFS-only - Running -RELEASE (i.e. no source, thus a kernel cannot be rebuilt with added debugging features, etc.) - No swap configured - No serial console -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@koitsu.org | | UNIX Systems Administrator http://jdc.koitsu.org/ | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB | _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
