Nux! <nux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04.08.2012 20:32, Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/04/2012 05:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> > Using BTRFS now is like using ZFS in 2005.
> >> > ZFS is adult now, BTRFS is not
> > ZFS is the best I know for filesystems >= 2 TB and in case you need
> > flexible
> > snapshots. ZFS has just one single problem, it is slow in case you
> > ask it to
> > verify a stable FS state, UFS is much faster here, but this ZFS
> > "problem" is
> > true for all filesystems on Linux because of the implementation of
> > the Linux
> > buffer cache.
>
> Given your expertise then, can you say how mature/stable/usable is ZFS
> on Linux, specifically CentOS?
> That's what everybody is probably most interested in.
ZFS is stable on FreeBSD since aprox. 3 years.
ZFS itself is also stable.
I cannot speak for the stability of Linux, but I've read that there is a group
that works on a ZFS integration. The problem in this area is that Linux comes
with a very limited VFS interface and porters would either need to reduce ZFS
functionality or ignore the VFS interface from Linux.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (uni)
joerg.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
