Hi Paul,
I have been testing ZoL for a while now (somewhere around a year?) on
two separate machines:
1) dual Socket 771 Xeon , 8GB ECC RAM, 12 Seagate 1TB ES.2 HD (2x6 disk
raidz2), ubuntu oneiric, with the zfs-native/stable PPA
2) Intel Xeon CPU E31120, 8GB ECC RAM, 4 x 400GB WD RE2 ( 1 4 d
As I understand it LLNL has very large datasets on ZFS on Linux. You
could inquire with them, as well as
http://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinux.org/group/zfs-discuss/topics?pli=1
. My guess is that it's quite stable for at least some use cases
(most likely: LLNL's!), but that may not be yours. Yo
9:08pm, Stefan Ring wrote:
Sorry for not being able to contribute any ZoL experience. I've been
pondering whether it's worth trying for a few months myself already.
Last time I checked, it didn't support the .zfs directory (for
snapshot access), which you really don't want to miss after getting
>To put it slightly differently, if I used ZoL in production, would I be likely
to experience performance or stability
problems?
I saw one team revert from ZoL (CentOS 6) back to ext on some backup servers
for an application project, the killer was
stat times (find running slow etc.), perhaps
> I saw one team revert from ZoL (CentOS 6) back to ext on some backup servers
> for an application project, the killer was
> stat times (find running slow etc.), perhaps more layer 2 cache could have
> solved the problem, but it was easier to deploy ext/lvm2.
But stat times (think directory trav
>To put it slightly differently, if I used ZoL in production, would I be
likely to experience performance or stability problems?
I saw one team revert from ZoL (CentOS 6) back to ext on some backup
servers for an application project, the killer was
stat times (find running slow etc.), perhaps mor
On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Paul Archer wrote:
> 9:59am, Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Archer wrote:
>>
>> This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but
>> recently several people on this list have
>> said/implied that ZFS was only
9:59am, Richard Elling wrote:
On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Archer wrote:
This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but
recently several people on this list have
said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable for production use on FreeBSD
(or Solaris, of course
On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Archer wrote:
> This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but recently
> several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable
> for production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course) rather than Linux with
> ZoL.
>
> I
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 05:48:57AM -0700, Paul Archer wrote:
> This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but
> recently several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was
> only acceptable for production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course)
> rather than Linux with Zo
This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but recently
several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable for
production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course) rather than Linux with ZoL.
I'm working on a project at work involving a large(-ish) amoun
11 matches
Mail list logo
