On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Nicheal wrote: > Hi developers, > > it mentioned in the source code that OPTION(filestore_zfs_snap, > OPT_BOOL, false) // zfsonlinux is still unstable. So if we turn on > filestore_zfs_snap and neglect journal like btrf, it will be unstable? > > As is mentioned on the "zfs on linux community", It is stable enough > to run a ZFS root filesystem on a GNU/Linux installation for your > workstation as something to play around with. It is copy-on-write, > supports compression, deduplication, file atomicity, off-disk caching, > (encryption not support), and much more. So it seems that all > features are supported except for encryption. > Thus, I am puzzled that the unstable, you mean, is ZFS unstable > itself. Or it now is already stable on linux, but still unstable when > used as ceph FileStore filesystem. > > If so, what will happen if we use it, losing data or frequent crash? At the time the libzfs support was added, zfsonlinux would crash very quickly under the ceph-osd workload. If that has changed, great! We haven't tested it, though, since Zheng added the initial support. sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
