From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 6 06:58:26 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2087B1065672 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:58:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236158FC13 for ; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 06:58:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m666vUEm003541; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 08:57:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id m666vT0M003538; Sun, 6 Jul 2008 08:57:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 08:57:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: John Nielsen In-Reply-To: <200807060222.40004.lists@jnielsen.net> Message-ID: <20080706085537.J3537@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <1a5a68400806080604ped08ce8p120fc21107e7de81@mail.gmail.com> <4F9C9299A10AE74E89EA580D14AA10A61A193E@royal64.emp.zapto.org> <20080612132527.K5722@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <200807060222.40004.lists@jnielsen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD + ZFS on a production server? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 06:58:26 -0000 > > ZFS on FreeBSD is GEOM-ified. While I believe what Wojciech said about > needing a full disk is correct under Solaris, it's not the case in i never said it requires full disk. but it will work very slow sharing a disk with non-ZFS things. >> to say more: zfs set copies could be usable to selectively mirror given >> data while not mirroring other (using unprotected storage for ZFS). >> but it's broken. it writes N copies under write, but don't remake >> copies in case of failure! which make it almost unusable. in case of any failure you have to copy and delete every file to make it actually repaired.