Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:36:24 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable? Message-ID: <flr3iq$of7$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <47810DE3.3050106@FreeBSD.org> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org> <flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org> <47810DE3.3050106@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Kris Kennaway wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: >> Robert Watson wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet in the thread, but >>> another thing worth taking into account in considering the stability >>> of ZFS is whether or not Sun considers it a production feature in >>> Solaris. Last I heard, it was still considered an experimental >>> feature there as well. >> >> Last I heard, rsync didn't crash Solaris on ZFS :) > > [Citation needed] I can't provide citation about a thing that doesn't happen - you don't hear things like "oh and yesterday I ran rsync on my Solaris with ZFS and *it didn't crash*!" often. But, with some grains of salt taken, consider this Google results: * searching for "rsync crash solaris zfs": 790 results, most of them obviously irrelevant * searching for "rsync crash freebsd zfs": 10,800 results; a small number of the results is from this thread, some are duplicates, but it's a large number in any case. I feel that the number of Solaris+ZFS installations worldwide is larger than that of FreeBSD+ZFS and they've had ZFS longer. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHgRGYldnAQVacBcgRAl22AKCNn8JJNdP7fYk3PNsnRhSGdwEn7gCfYUHc clThYOP6zkJD3wFZrFqFHXc= =Et/1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?flr3iq$of7$1>