On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 12:17:53 -0500 Christopher Barry <[email protected]> said:
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 21:42:25 +0900 > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 10:25:04 +0000 Mick <[email protected]> > > said: > > > > > On Sunday 08 Dec 2013 01:48:18 Steven@e wrote: > > > > >> Hello beber, just for information, you dont need FUSE anymore > > > > >> to use ZFS. zfsonlinux solves this. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the info, but why should we need this ? I see no > > > > > valid reason. > > > > > > There are out-of-tree Linux kernel modules care of ZFSOnLinux > > > Project[1]. Therefore using ZFS-Fuse is not necessary (or > > > recommended). At least one valid reason for using ZFS (there are > > > many) is that it guards against fs corruption by using CRC > > > checksums. > > > > > > I understand that both Oracle (RHL) Linux and SUSE consider BTRFS > > > production ready and Oracle will be/are using this instead of ZFS. > > > From my limited understanding BTRFS is being developed at speed and > > > catching up with ZFS, but it does not have the amount of testing > > > that ZFS had to date to vouch for its stability/maturity. At this > > > stage in their development ZFS is superior to BTRFS in terms of > > > functionality, although there is hope that BTRFS will develop at > > > speed. > > > > and why? ext4 HAS been production ready for YEARS... inf act not > > production ready... it has been *IN8 production for years... if there > > is a fs i would trust - it's ext4. not zfs and DEFINITELY not btrfs. > > ext4 (and 3 etc. before it) have many more miles of PRODUCTION behind > > them. > > Absolutely. The other filesystems are amazing in their feature sets, > but are not viable production filesystems quite yet in my opinion. > > > > > what this probably was ... was an unstable bleeding-edge kernel since > > the servers are being run on gentoo and thus are not exactly being > > conservative. it was probably a newly introduced bug that hasn't been > > hammered out and other fs's used less will have such bugs many times > > MORE than ext4 will. > > > > > > Gentoo is a great desktop distro, but definitely not a server OS (may > cause a flame war here, but sorry...). For me, and I've been a sysadmin > since Debian first came out (yes, that long), and I've used literally > all distros at one time or another. Debian stable (or even testing) is > an ideal server OS you can absolutely rely on. I would not use anything > else. If you absolutely must use gentoo for some feature only it > provides, then only use it in the VM - definitely NOT on the host. The > host must be rock solid. > > But, if rebuilding the setup is on the radar in light of this wake up > call, the filesystem argument is totally moot - just use LVM for the > images. It's the correct thing to do for a production VM host. well beber (our admin who volunteers his time to the server and its vms) wants gentoo. -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ enlightenment-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-users
