ZFS-FUSE Status: Happy stable release after patch, and in Debian. (tummy.com, ltd. Journal Entry)
tummy.com: we do linux

Friday January 22, at 16:59
Subject: ZFS-FUSE Status: Happy stable release after patch, and in Debian.
Keywords: Status, ZFS
Posted by: Sean Reifschneider

Related entries:
   Improving Deduplication Performance Under ZFS-FUSE by Sean Reifschneider, Saturday April 17, at 00:09

I've continued to do a lot of testing and other poking at ZFS-FUSE under Linux, and things are looking pretty good. I had run into a problem with the stable 0.6.0 release when used with lots (13+) of devices with very long names (50-ish character /dev names). However, that seems to be resolved with a very short patch as mentioned in this mailing list thread.

Additionally, zfs-fuse has just been placed into Debian for the Squeeze release (including the patch above). So, before long we should be able to "apt-get zfs-fuse" and have solid access to the joys of ZFS. Though note that this does not include dedup functionality -- there are still some bugs in the base ZFS code to be worked out in that.

I've been running ZFS on my storage server for over a year, but I had found a version that mostly worked (though there were issues with heavy snapshot use). It wasn't until a couple of weeks ago that I finally decided to upgrade. It hasn't been trouble-free -- because of the bug above I ended up having to reload my pool. But considering that I have good backups, I decided I might as well put the recent stable release to the test.

Unfortunately, at the moment one of my test machines has had some sort of hardware failure, and the other I had to swap to different hardware because we needed the chassis that it was on for other testing, and it's not booting in the new chassis. So for the moment, my stress testing is on hold.
(Post Reply)

Comment
someone
Subject: ZFS
What size of drives do you use ZFS?
Comment
Author: Sean Reifschneider
Subject: Drive sizes.
I'm using a variety of drive sizes for ZFS, mostly 250GB and 500GB, mostly because these are what I already have available. If I were buying drives for a new storage box today I'd probably use 5 2TB 5400RPM drives to give me 6TB of storage with RAID Z2, slower but also using less power.

Of course, RAID Z2 makes smaller drives more attractive, because of less overhead (10 1TB drives would have 8TB data 2TB parity, 5 2TB drives gives 6TB data 4TB parity), so it would mostly be a matter of the math.

10 drives would fit internally on my current layout, so anything under 11 would be my best bet.

Sean