From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 265A71381F3 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:35:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3149FE0B8D; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:35:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 357B8E0ADD for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vb0-f47.google.com ([209.85.212.47]:37421) by svr-us4.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VDzlN-002B05-JN for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:35:33 +0700 Received: by mail-vb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id h10so2136828vbh.6 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:35:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=CdbI+hju52iLVi/4F3aUMNRG6dcFQVn4c9NUQXSOelk=; b=o05k99vOnDmjj9226OH/q0SkqCkrXVvvGLD6O0C7AKgJVCUYzuMTM4Lrnq/AtQ6BxC 0W89RRqXH+dBnIaq1fdVMo7G+6D9JbsIC2CSBpkDsIdu/+mWDwiGRk6tRAuA5oaut1OV lMYdgnsvSe8hiPcDRJvAXPshqCZAHFMyRvQatrTB170vT8trb2DXiUnTLJiu1fbqpuX+ FmRAhLMHIM6v+N5kZnCSE7+0bBMuPGMMQwdTG2TLUpdT8UFG8jdhVrQT8ppMV1zOE8sX 7ZZXer8eJZW8srTQeE1CvXivxiQd10/lVT+42aAoD3ftPtlPrQgBS2T19Oyna3uERvrZ rpcg== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.35.40 with SMTP id e8mr726314vdj.37.1377534930064; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.163.69 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:35:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <521B8029.9080604@xunil.at> References: <52001700.5070401@xunil.at> <52001F61.2090501@gmail.com> <520020D7.8010206@xunil.at> <521B5FC9.4090205@xunil.at> <521B7E41.3050002@xunil.at> <521B8029.9080604@xunil.at> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:35:30 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SLES or gentoo ... ? From: Pandu Poluan To: gentoo-user Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3079bb222c1e7804e4dc5826 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr-us4.tirtonadi.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: svr-us4.tirtonadi.com: authenticated_id: rileyer+pandu.poluan.info/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Archives-Salt: 8ba03176-b827-49f3-9c9f-474147f608ce X-Archives-Hash: 8c09c9ac21aabe9749d70c451b321080 --20cf3079bb222c1e7804e4dc5826 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrot= e: > Am 26.08.2013 18:14, schrieb Pandu Poluan: > > > Well... with a ZFS-backed storage, when you want to create a new VM, al= l > > you have to do is `zfs clone` ;-) > > Yes, I see those possibilities ;-) > > That system will run rather important stuff ... so I have to be rather > careful. But the bit-rot-prevention/checksumming-features are a plus in > this perspective. > > Do you run such a system? How big? > > I have to admit that my virtualized servers are not running on top of ZFS-backed storage... because the company already has a quite sizable EMC VNX storage, and it's a shame to not use that behemoth... ;-) At the moment, the ZFS-backed storage is used to store our email archive system (using MailArchiva), and with more than 15'000 emails per day, it has been performing flawlessly. That said, when I was hunting around for information on ZFS before taking the plunge, a *lot* of discussion revolves around using ZFS as the storage back-end for virtualization, be it using KVM or VMware. Rgds, --=20 FdS Pandu E Poluan * ~ IT Optimizer ~** * =E2=80=A2 LOPSA Member #15248 =E2=80=A2 Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com =E2=80=A2 Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan --20cf3079bb222c1e7804e4dc5826 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger &l= t;lists@xunil.at>= ; wrote:
Am 26.08.2013 18:14, schrieb Pandu Poluan= :

> Well... with a ZFS-backed storage, when you want to create a new VM, a= ll
> you have to do is `zfs clone` ;-)

Yes, I see those possibilities ;-)

That system will run rather important stuff ... so I have to be rather
careful. But the bit-rot-prevention/checksumming-features are a plus in
this perspective.

Do you run such a system? How big?


I have to admit that my virtualized servers are not running on top= of ZFS-backed storage... because the company already has a quite sizable E= MC VNX storage, and it's a shame to not use that behemoth... ;-)

At the=20 moment, the ZFS-backed storage is used to store our email archive system (using MailArchiva), and with more than 15'000 emails per day, it has= =20 been performing flawlessly.

That said, when I wa= s hunting around for information on ZFS before taking the plunge, a *lot* o= f discussion revolves around using ZFS as the storage back-end for virtuali= zation, be it using KVM or VMware.


Rgds,
--
FdS Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~

=C2=A0=E2=80=A2 LOPSA Member #15248
=C2=A0=E2=80=A2 Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com
=C2=A0=E2=80=A2 Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan

--20cf3079bb222c1e7804e4dc5826--