Ivan Voras wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: >> Ivan Voras wrote: >>> Robert Watson wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet in the thread, but >>>> another thing worth taking into account in considering the stability >>>> of ZFS is whether or not Sun considers it a production feature in >>>> Solaris. Last I heard, it was still considered an experimental >>>> feature there as well. >>> >>> Last I heard, rsync didn't crash Solaris on ZFS :) >> >> [Citation needed] > > I can't provide citation about a thing that doesn't happen - you don't > hear things like "oh and yesterday I ran rsync on my Solaris with ZFS > and *it didn't crash*!" often. > > But, with some grains of salt taken, consider this Google results: > > * searching for "rsync crash solaris zfs": 790 results, most of them > obviously irrelevant > * searching for "rsync crash freebsd zfs": 10,800 results; a small > number of the results is from this thread, some are duplicates, but it's > a large number in any case. > > I feel that the number of Solaris+ZFS installations worldwide is larger > than that of FreeBSD+ZFS and they've had ZFS longer. Almost all Solaris systems are 64 bit. KrisReceived on Sun Jan 06 2008 - 17:10:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:25 UTC