Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:06:00 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, om-lists-bsd@omx.ch Subject: Re: ZFS status now in June? / stable enough for a file server? Message-ID: <20070620150559.GA64792@rot26.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200706201200.l5KC0DMf015276@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <1182338018.10483.27.camel@bigapple.omnis.ch> <200706201200.l5KC0DMf015276@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 02:00:13PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote: > Olivier Mueller wrote: > > I have to setup a file storage server (non-critcal, just as secondary > > backup server) and I am wondering if would be a realistic idea to start > > using ZFS. I spent some time browsing the lists and newsgroups, and the > > status wiki page looks "good": http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS .=20 > >=20 > > The http://www.freebsd.org/releng/index.html page also states: > > June 2007 Start FreeBSD 7.0 Release Process, so this may also be > > a positive point about overall stability? :) >=20 > As far as I know, 7-current is now in code freeze (though > I haven't seen a "heads up" on this list yes). That means > that it is now becoming progressively stable. Personally > I think that it was quite stable even before it entered > the freeze. >=20 > > It would be to store lots of data, and the FS-compression feature of Z= FS > > would be quite interesting for this server. Of course I'd be glad to > > help debugging any issues I may see.=20 > >=20 > > So if you are already using ZFS in "pre-production", I would be glad f= or > > a short "go/no go" feedback, thanks :-) >=20 > My two cents: It works very well in general. I haven't > seen any reports recently from people who actually lost > any data due to ZFS problems. (Certainly someone will > correct me if I'm wrong.) >=20 > However, there are a few things that you should be aware > of. First: The more RAM, the better. Second, ZFS works > much better on amd64 than on i386. That's because of the > larger address space and related vm management. If you > run ZFS on i386, you will need to spend some time on > tuning it (maxvnodes sysctl etc., see the list archives), > otherwise you might run into panics. On amd64, ZFS seems > to run fine out of the box without tuning. No, you still need to tune it to avoid poor performance and deadlocks, see the archives for my notes on this. > Bottom line: If you intend to set up ZFS with 7-current > on an amd64 machine with a decent amount of RAM -- by all > means, go ahead. amd64 is definitely the way to go. Kris --sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGeUJXWry0BWjoQKURAvbWAKCN+7rmzLTG/yHYEbY/weEhbZzbSgCgz0DK F9J1CmUAi4Gw4a6k8307ZzU= =rDI1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sdtB3X0nJg68CQEu--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070620150559.GA64792>