| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/09/2014 15:13, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>>> ZFS is the most resilient filesystem I've ever used, you can through the |
| 6 |
>>> bucket and kitchen sink at it and it really doesn't give a shit (it just |
| 7 |
>>> deals with it :-) ) |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Nothing wrong with ZFS itself, but keep in mind that ZFS on linux is |
| 11 |
>> not the same as ZFS on Solaris as far as maturity goes. I'll admit |
| 12 |
>> that I'm a btrfs fan for a couple of reasons, but when it comes to |
| 13 |
>> stability on linux I wouldn't put either in the same class as ext3, or |
| 14 |
>> even ext4 (which is pretty mature now). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I neglected to mention - I use ZFS on FreeBSD, haven't used ZFS on linux |
| 18 |
> enought o comment on that |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm not an expert on ZFS, but I believe that it is considered more |
| 22 |
stable on FreeBSD, since I believe they used the original CDDL sources |
| 23 |
there. It still hasn't been around for as long as it has been on |
| 24 |
Solaris of course, but it is a bit more mainstream on BSD. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives