Paul - Don't substitute redundancy for backup...
if your data is important to you, for the love of steak, make sure you have a backup that would not be destroyed by, say, a lightening strike, fire or stray 747. For what it's worth, I'm also using ZFS on 32 bit and am yet to experience any sort of issues. An external 500GB disk + external USB enclosure runs for what - $150? That's what I use anyways. :) Nathan. Paul Kraus wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Brian D. Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> ZFS is not 32-bit safe. There are a number of places in the ZFS code where >> it is assumed that a 64-bit data object is being read atomically (or set >> atomically). It simply isn't true and can lead to weird and bugs. > > This is disturbing, especially as I have not seen this > documented anywhere. I have a dual P-III 550 Intel system with 1 GB of > RAM (Intel L440GX+ motherboard). I am running Solaris 10U4 and am > using ZFS (mirrors and stripes only, no RAIDz). While this is 'only' a > home server, I still cannot afford to lose over 500 GB of data. If ZFS > isn't supported under 32 bit systems then I need to start migrating to > UFS/SLVM as soon as I can. I specifically went with 10U4 so that I > would have a stable, supportable environment. > > Under what conditions are the 32 bit / 64 bit problems likely > to occur ? I have been running this system for 6 months (a migration > from OpenSuSE 10.1) without any issues. The NFS server performance is > at least an order of magnitude better than the SuSE server was. > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
