ZFS "stalls" -- and maybe we should be talking about defaults?

[Jeremy Chadwick]

On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:18:30PM -0800, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Jeremy Chadwick <jdc at koitsu.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:09:41PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >
> > > > - Disks are GPT and are *partitioned, and ZFS refers to the partitions
> > > >   not the raw disk -- this matters (honest, it really does; the ZFS
> > > >   code handles things differently with raw disks)
> > >
> > > Not on FreeBSD as far I can see.
> >
> > My statement comes from here (first line in particular):
> >
> >
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2013-January/248697.html
> >
> > If this is wrong/false, then this furthers my point about kernel folks
> > who are in-the-know needing to chime in and help stop the
> > misinformation.  The rest of us are just end-users, often misinformed.
> 
> This has been false from the very first import of ZFS into FreeBSD
> 7-STABLE.  Pawel even mentions that GEOM allows the use of the cache on
> partitions with ZFS somewhere around that time frame.  Considering he did
> the initial import of ZFS into FreeBSD, I don't think you can find a more
> canonical answer.  :)
> 
> This is one of the biggest differences between the Solaris-based ZFS and
> the FreeBSD-based ZFS.

This is good (excellent) information to know -- thank you for clearing
that up.

> It's too bad this mis-information has basically become a meme.  :(

Such is the case with FreeBSD's ZFS in general, solely because of the
fact that the number of people who can answer the deep technical
questions are few.

-- 
| Jeremy Chadwick                                   jdc at koitsu.org |
| UNIX Systems Administrator                http://jdc.koitsu.org/ |
| Mountain View, CA, US                                            |
| Making life hard for others since 1977.             PGP 4BD6C0CB |