From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jan  6 17:08:55 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 C5D5816A418;
	Sun,  6 Jan 2008 17:08:55 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB6913C447;
	Sun,  6 Jan 2008 17:08:55 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4344EB8C;
	Sun,  6 Jan 2008 12:08:55 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:08:55 +0000 (GMT)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <20080106170452.L105@fledge.watson.org>
References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org>
	<flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: When will ZFS become stable?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:08:55 -0000

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Ivan Voras wrote:

> Robert Watson wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet in the thread, but another 
>> thing worth taking into account in considering the stability of ZFS is 
>> whether or not Sun considers it a production feature in Solaris.  Last I 
>> heard, it was still considered an experimental feature there as well.
>
> Last I heard, rsync didn't crash Solaris on ZFS :)

My admittedly second-hand understanding is that ZFS shows similarly gratuitous 
memory use on both Mac OS X and Solaris.  One advantage Solaris has is that it 
runs primarily on expensive 64-bit servers with lots of memory.  Part of the 
problem on FreeBSD is that people run ZFS on sytems with 32-bit CPUs and a lot 
less memory.  It could be that ZFS should be enforcing higher minimum hardware 
requirements to mount (i.e., refusing to run on systems with 32-bit address 
spaces or <4gb of memory and inadequate tuning).

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge