Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 14:00:52 -0700 From: "Pat Maddox" <pat@patmaddox.com> To: "Colin Percival" <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-cloud@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Current status of ZFS AMIs on EC2? Message-ID: <F625746C-5AF4-4995-B8FB-BC415CB1266B@patmaddox.com> In-Reply-To: <12428f52-ea5a-a2e5-7eb6-e170c97f0e17@freebsd.org> References: <65D39FF2-C14D-430E-A83B-0C3606E0D7AF@patmaddox.com> <12428f52-ea5a-a2e5-7eb6-e170c97f0e17@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 Sep 2021, at 13:22, Colin Percival wrote: > On 9/23/21 1:49 AM, Pat Maddox wrote: >> Hi there, I came across Colin=E2=80=99s 2019 post announcing ZFS AMIs = for = >> EC2 [1]. I >> haven=E2=80=99t seen any more recent information regarding ZFS on EC2.= = >> I=E2=80=99ve launched >> one instance, and it appears to work fine from initial tests = >> (including >> recovering a known working boot env using beadm). >> >> I have also installed the official 12 and 13 releases, and see that = >> they are UFS. >> >> I have two questions: >> >> 1. Is anyone using the ZFS AMIs for production? > > Yes. (Not me, but I've heard from several people who are. I'll let = > them > identify themselves if they choose to do so.) > >> 2. Why has ZFS not been incorporated into the official releases? > > ZFS, and other "flavoured" AMIs, were blocked waiting for this: > > https://www.daemonology.net/blog/2021-08-31-FreeBSD-AMI-SSM-Public-Para= meters.html > > Now it's just a matter of finding time; my current top priority for = > EC2 > is speeding up the FreeBSD boot process. Great, thanks for the info. I=E2=80=99ve done a 12.0 -> 12.2 -> 13.0 upgr= ade, = all seems to be good. Pat
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F625746C-5AF4-4995-B8FB-BC415CB1266B>