Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 20:40:20 -0400 From: "Zaphod Beeblebrox" <zbeeble@gmail.com> To: "Marc UBM Bocklet" <ubm@u-boot-man.de> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of ZFS in -stable? Message-ID: <5f67a8c40805181740v6f655fdjdfaec3312681b5c9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080514223515.84553317.ubm@u-boot-man.de> References: <48291889.8030406@pldrouin.net> <20080514223515.84553317.ubm@u-boot-man.de>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Marc UBM Bocklet <ubm@u-boot-man.de> wrote: > On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:26:49 -0400 > Pierre-Luc Drouin <pldrouin@pldrouin.net> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Thanks! > > Pierre-Luc Drouin > > We just set up a zfs based fileserver in our home. It's accessed via > samba and ftp, connected via an em 1gb card. > FreeBSD is installed on an 80GB ufs2 disk, the zpool consists of two > 750GB disks, set up as raidz (my mistake, mirror would probably have > been the better choice). > We've been using it for about 2 weeks now and there have been no > problems (transferred lots of big and small files off/on it, maxing out > disk speed). For standard filestore, Samba/NFS has worked fine. However, when using Norton Ghost to make backup snapshots, the files (on ZFS) come out corrupt.They are not corrupt on UFS backed SAMBA service.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5f67a8c40805181740v6f655fdjdfaec3312681b5c9>