2 ms·

My (admittedly limted) experience with ZFS has been bad. I know it's supposed to be great but that is not what I have experienced. Multi-hour outages. Having to

My (admittedly limted) experience with ZFS has been bad. I know it's supposed to be great but that is not what I have experienced. Multi-hour outages. Having to have Oracle help resolve problems. This was a few year ago now, maybe it's better these days. I was not the administrator, just a user, but we had ZFS issues at least quarterly on a ~20TB shared filesystem on a Linux cluster.

walrus 9y ago
Was ZFS determined to be the problem in the root cause analysis, or was it another part of the storage system that failed? It's easy to pass the blame down to the lowest level of the system because no one wants to take the blame. If it was actually determined to be the fault of ZFS, what was the problem? I'd like to avoid it in my own deployment.
deelowe 9y ago
Been running an 8 drive array for nearly 5 years now myself and never once had an issue through 3 PCs and 3 different operating systems. What was your issue?
- FullyFunctional 9y ago
  With utmost respect: this isn't a super valuable data point. A "production deployment" with lots of users and/or workloads will see issues you will never encounter in a moderate setting. FWIW, I use FreeNAS in a similar small but diverse setting with nary a problem, but when I sat it up for a 30+ organization, issue arose that I hadn't expected (not data loss, but usability and performance issues).
  - cyphar 9y ago
    ZFS has definitely been used in very large production deployments in a variety of scenarios for well over a decade. The question seems reasonable given that history. ZFS isn't some toy filesystem hacked together over a weekend.
  - deelowe 9y ago
    Does anyone have any proof of this? Seriously I'd love to see some. Bug reports or anything?