From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jan  6 18:10:58 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4636716A418;
	Sun,  6 Jan 2008 18:10:58 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8859513C46A;
	Sun,  6 Jan 2008 18:10:54 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org)
Message-ID: <478119AB.8050906@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:10:51 +0100
From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org>	<20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org>	<flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org>	<47810DE3.3050106@FreeBSD.org>
	<flr3iq$of7$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <flr3iq$of7$1@ger.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:10:58 -0000

Ivan Voras wrote:
> 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.

Almost all Solaris systems are 64 bit.

Kris