On 2013-12-09 01:52, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > 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.
Yep :) And opposed to Christopher, I don't find gentoo is great for a desktop but for servers. The main reason is flexibility and that it's easier to manage, but as Chris said, this is flamewar topic, I could write a book on why people should not use Debian on servers. We have a builder host, so configuration, packages etc are shared across all servers and no compilation is done on production hosts (without that, I have to say that it's a real pain in ass to maintain, but not the case) About FS, raster speech agreed ++++. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
