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>: > >> > > We already have an infrastructure based on ZFS, and I am not sure I do trust ZFS on Linux? Wouldn’t start with a 20T pool on that one, TBH ;-) There are probably a lot of quirks and workarounds needed that only those who’ve run it for a long time are aware of (if they’re actually aware of them at all). That said, I’ve run into my own problems with zfs send now….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>