I'm using the GIT version, that 0.5 version is quite a bit outdated. I was not all that worried about using ZFS on this experiment because we do have the old mail storage on ext3 synchronized and ready to switch back, and I could disable dedup and compression on-the-fly if needed (which eventually was).
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 00:16, Stan Hoeppner stan@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
On 11/3/2011 1:24 PM, Felipe Scarel wrote:
Reasons to choose ZFS were snapshots, and mainly dedup and compression capabilities. I know, it's ironic since I'm not able to use them now due to severe performance issues with them (mostly dedup) turned on.
I do like the emphasis on data integrity and fast on-the-fly configurability of ZFS to an extent, but I wouldn't recommend it highly for new users, especially for production. It works (in fact it's working right now), but has its fair share of troubles.
We've started implementations to move our mail system to a more modular enviroment and we'll probably move away from ZFS. Was a nice experiment nonetheless, I learned quite a bit from it.
I find this all very interesting...
"Please keep in mind the current 0.5.2 stable release does not yet support a mountable filesystem. This functionality is currently available only in the 0.6.0-rc6 release candidate."
https://github.com/downloads/zfsonlinux/zfs/zfs-0.6.0-rc6.tar.gz
"Uploaded October 14, 2011"
So in the past ~two weeks, you converted your 15K+ user production server to ZFS on Linux, as an experiment, and have now decided to change to another filesystem solution, a mere two weeks later? Or am I misinterpreting the date given that 0.6.0-rc6 was released?
-- Stan