Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 00:47:07 +0200 From: Rainer Duffner <rainer@ultra-secure.de> To: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best practice for high availability ZFS pool Message-ID: <DE067239-8D5B-4B8A-8E2D-7EBD3E3B42F8@ultra-secure.de> In-Reply-To: <AF7C7C50-B435-48BA-8069-1AB85D2F2B0F@FreeBSD.org> References: <5E69742D-D2E0-437F-B4A9-A71508C370F9@FreeBSD.org> <284D58D1-1C62-4519-A46B-7D0E8326B86B@ultra-secure.de> <AF7C7C50-B435-48BA-8069-1AB85D2F2B0F@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Am 17.05.2016 um 00:44 schrieb Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org>: >=20 >>=20 >=20 > We already have an infrastructure based on ZFS, and I am not sure I do = trust ZFS on Linux? Wouldn=E2=80=99t start with a 20T pool on that one, TBH ;-) There are probably a lot of quirks and workarounds needed that only = those who=E2=80=99ve run it for a long time are aware of (if they=E2=80=99= re actually aware of them at all). That said, I=E2=80=99ve run into my own problems with zfs send = now=E2=80=A6.but only on 10.3. Rainer=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DE067239-8D5B-4B8A-8E2D-7EBD3E3B42F8>