On Tue, 17 Apr 2012, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 08:12:20PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
Anything else I should consider?
some things that occur to me:
1. zfs's "complexity" is more than offset by the length of time it has been in real world production use. ZFS is a production quality filesystem now, and btrfs really isn't yet.
And it appeared on Solaris first, FreeBSD second, Linux third. It is worth a consideration but it needs reflection - the OS "zoo" syndrome, the inhouse (and your) knowledge, the licensing issue (less on FreeBSD but on Oracle side), the additional expenses I am not sure what the free (according to my knowledge) Solaris Express version offers, or going with Open Indiana instead. For my purpose I went with FreeBSD instead of Solaris, one of the reason was the uncertainty surrounding OpenSolaris at the time. Technically Solaris seems to be the best "home" for ZFS still, Solaris integrates NFS, SMB, iSCSI and also the ZFS memory (ARC) and ACL problems more or less seemless in ZFS and OS. At least they are all "Unix";-)
2. zfs is very "sysadmin-friendly". and reliable.
Agreed. But I do not run NFS on ZFS, and at least in the FreeBSD mailing-lists I see some issues. I would research whether ZFSOnLinux (and BTRFS) has these issues as well. For the issues I experienced myself (not NFS-related), they were solvable by kernel (sysctl and boot loader value) tuning. Regards Peter