From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 7 02:29:48 2008 Return-Path: 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 A1CD616A41B for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 02:29:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from askbill@conducive.net) Received: from conducive.net (conducive.org [203.194.153.81]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6531E13C45A for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 02:29:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from askbill@conducive.net) Received: from c-75-75-30-250.hsd1.va.comcast.net ([75.75.30.250]:65290 helo=pb.local) by conducive.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1JBhkJ-0002FF-2F for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:29:47 +0000 Message-ID: <47818E97.8030601@conducive.net> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:29:43 +0000 From: =?UTF-8?B?6Z+T5a625qiZIEJpbGwgSGFja2Vy?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org> <47810DE3.3050106@FreeBSD.org> <478119AB.8050906@FreeBSD.org> <47814160.4050401@samsco.org> <4781541D.6070500@conducive.net> <47815D29.2000509@conducive.net> <1199664196.899.10.camel@RabbitsDen> In-Reply-To: <1199664196.899.10.camel@RabbitsDen> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: ZFS honesty X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:29:48 -0000 Alexandre "Sunny" Kovalenko wrote: > On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 22:58 +0000, 韓家標 Bill Hacker wrote: > >> None are perfect. But ZFS is just *too* new. And not just on *BSD. >> If IBM had not already had GPFS, Sun might never even have 'invented' ZFS. > Could you by any chance elaborate -- from the information available to > me, I did not get an impression that ZFS is the cluster-aware filesystem > or will ever be one. From the Wikipedia article on Lustre... "...Sun completed its acquisition of Cluster File Systems, Inc., including the Lustre file system, on October 2, 2007, with the intention of bringing the benefits of Lustre technologies to Sun's ZFS file system and the Solaris operating system." So Sun has had what? 2+ months? to try to fill a ZFS 'hole' that was worth a major investment? See also traffic on *Sun's* ZFS list. Adds up to a tacit admission of 'not quite there yet' to me... > OTOH that's all GPFS is. Far more features than that - 'robust', 'fault tolerant', 'Disaster Recovery' ... all the usual buzzwords. And nothing prevents using 'cluster' tools on a single box. Not storage-wise anyway. More importantly - GPFS has just under ten years in the market, and has become a primary player in Supercomputing as well as video on demand et al. BTW: UFS(1) / FFS - have very respectable upper-bounds - UFS2 even more so, so (even) Sun is not totally dependent on ZFS. Unless they choose to become so... Finally - the principle architect/miracle worker of ZFS on FreeBSD - pjd@ - seems to be heavily committed on other matters now, and may be so for some time to come. Ergo 'caution' remains appropriate for production use w/r ZFS - perhaps until 8.X. Bill