I'm using the GIT version, that 0.5 version is quite a bit outdated.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 <s...@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 >