From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 13 08:42:16 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC43E106567D for ; Tue, 13 May 2008 08:42:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danger@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailhub.rulez.sk (mailhub.rulez.sk [IPv6:2001:15c0:6672::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A58D8FC29 for ; Tue, 13 May 2008 08:42:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danger@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.rulez.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09E15C027; Tue, 13 May 2008 10:42:15 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rulez.sk Received: from mailhub.rulez.sk ([78.47.53.106]) by localhost (genesis.rulez.sk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GJcBTn2xEfVw; Tue, 13 May 2008 10:42:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from DANGER-PC (danger.mcrn.sk [84.16.37.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: danger@rulez.sk) by mailhub.rulez.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 024D75C020; Tue, 13 May 2008 10:42:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 10:42:05 +0200 From: Daniel Gerzo X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.99.3) Professional Organization: The FreeBSD Project X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1618815695.20080513104205@rulez.sk> To: Pierre-Luc Drouin In-Reply-To: <48291889.8030406@pldrouin.net> References: <48291889.8030406@pldrouin.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of ZFS in -stable? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Gerzo List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 08:42:16 -0000 Hello Pierre-Luc, Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 6:26:49 AM, you wrote: > Hi, > I would like to know if the memory allocation problem with zfs has been > fixed in -stable? Is zfs considered to be more "stable" now? It's still an experimental feature in FreeBSD, though the memory allocation issues might have been already fixed (I don't know personally). Many people have reported success stories when using ZFS on FreeBSD, however there's also plenty of them who are reporting substantial issues when using ZFS. It's up to your own decision whether ZFS will be feasible for you; you might want to test it before deploying it to the production environment. -- Best regards, Daniel mailto:danger@FreeBSD.org