On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 11:42:41PM -0700, Georg-W. Koltermann wrote: > > > So, at this point in time that seems pretty > > discouraging for an everyday user, on Linux. > > > > nobody told, that zfs-fuse is ready for an everyday > > user at it`s current state ! ;) > > That's what I found out, wanted to share and get other's opinion on. > > I did not complain. I thought it might work, it might not, so I tried. > > BTW last night I tried ZFS on FreeBSD 7. I got a panic when trying to make it > import my existing pool at first. [...]
Can I see the panic message and backtrace? > [...] Then I tried again another way and did get it to > recognize it. My simple, non-representative performance measurement was even > slower than zfs-fuse (something like 4-5 minutes for the find, no apparent > caching > effect), and I had many USB read errors along the way as well. It looks like > FBSD 7 with ZFS is even more immature than zfs-fuse at this time. That's ok, > it is a CVS snapshot of FreeBSD "CURRENT" after all. First of all CURRENT snapshot comes with a kernel, which contains some heavely debugging options turned on by default. Turning off WITNESS should make the ZFS works few times faster. find was the only test you tried? Currently I'm using ported DNLC namecache, but I've a working code already that uses FreeBSD's namecache and it performs much better for such a test. There were few nits after the import, which are all (or most of them) fixed at this point, but I've a huge number of reports from the users that ZFS works very stable on FreeBSD. If you could reproduce the panic and send me info I'd be grateful. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
pgpDNnOyKEpF0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
