We tested ZFS on CentOS 6.4 a few months ago using a descend Supermicro server with 16GB RAM and 11 drives on RaidZ3. Same specs as a middle range storage server that we build mainly using FreeBSD. Performance was not bad but eventually we run into a situation were we could not import a pool anymore after a kernel / modules update. I would not recommend it for production... On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Lists <lists at benjamindsmith.com> wrote: > On 10/24/2013 02:47 PM, SilverTip257 wrote: > > You didn't mention XFS. > > Just curious if you considered it or not. > > Most definitely. There are a few features that I'm looking for: > > 1) MOST IMPORTANT: STABLE! > > 2) The ability to make the partition bigger by adding drives with very > minimal/no downtime. > > 3) The ability to remove an older, (smaller) drive or drives in order to > replace with larger capacity drives without downtime or having to copy > over all the files manually. > > 4) The ability to create snapshots with no downtime. > > 5) The ability to synchronize snapshots quickly and without having to > scan every single file. (backups) > > 6) Reasonable failure mode. Things *do* go south sometimes. Simple is > better, especially when it's simpler for the (typically highly stressed) > administrator. > > 7) Big. Basically all filesystems in question can handle our size > requirements. We might hit a 100 TB partition in the next 5 years. > > I think ZFS and BTRFS are the only candidates that claim to do all the > above. Btrfs seems to have been "stable in a year or so" for as long as > I could keep a straight face around the word "Gigabyte", so it's a > non-starter at this point. > > LVM2/Ext4 can do much of the above. However, horror stories abound, > particularly around very large volumes. Also, LVM2 can be terrible in > failure situations. > > XFS does snapshots, but don't you have to freeze the volume first? > Xfsrestore looks interesting for backups, though I don't know if there's > a consistent "freeze point". (what about ongoing writes?) Not sure about > removing HDDs in a volume with XFS. > > Not as sure about ZFS' stability on Linux (those who run direct Unix > derivatives seem to rave about it) and failure modes. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- George Kontostanos --- http://www.aisecure.net