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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5f67a8c40805181740v6f655fdjdfaec3312681b5c9>