<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Gary Buhrmaster <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com" target="_blank">gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Jim Oltman <<a href="mailto:jim.oltman@gmail.com">jim.oltman@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
.....<br>
<div class="im">> I agree on the ZFS point. It can really help to ensure your data doesn't<br>
> get corrupted during normal operation (if you know how to use ZFS). I'd<br>
> stay away from ZFS on Linux for a while. It's a different implementation<br>
> than the Solaris and I'm not sure if it has all the bugs worked out yet.<br>
<br>
</div>The best open source implementation of ZFS is in illumos. The FreeBSD<br>
implementation is good, but has some issues (see the FreeBSD lists<br>
for the state). The Linux implementation, while an interesting first step,<br>
suffers from some fundamentally incompatible architectural design issues<br>
between Solaris and Linux kernels, and is likely to forever live in a<br>
not quite ready for enterprise environment (due to its use of shims to<br>
deal with licensing, and no enterprise vendor willing to take ownership<br>
of maintenance of the core zfs code base).<br>
<br>
The Linux way forward is btrfs. On paper it has many (and more) of<br>
the features of ZFS. Its current implementation is not, yet, quite all<br>
there, and certainly does not have the time on the street to prove<br>
itself. That will all, eventually, change.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Gary</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Gary,</div><div><br></div><div>I completely agree about the FreeBSD/FreeNAS solution being less than optimal. Hence my desire to move to OmniOS. I just liked the GUI in FreeNAS. But learning the CLI will be better for many reasons. Plus, learning KVM will be kinda cool, too. </div>
</div></div></div>