Status of ZFS in -stable?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM, Marc UBM Bocklet <ubm at u-boot-man.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:26:49 -0400
> Pierre-Luc Drouin <pldrouin at pldrouin.net> wrote:
>
> > I would like to know if the memory allocation problem with zfs has
> > been fixed in -stable? Is zfs considered to be more "stable" now?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Pierre-Luc Drouin
>
> We just set up a zfs based fileserver in our home. It's accessed via
> samba and ftp, connected via an em 1gb card.
> FreeBSD is installed on an 80GB ufs2 disk, the zpool consists of two
> 750GB disks, set up as raidz (my mistake, mirror would probably have
> been the better choice).
> We've been using it for about 2 weeks now and there have been no
> problems (transferred lots of big and small files off/on it, maxing out
> disk speed).


For standard filestore, Samba/NFS has worked fine.  However,  when using
Norton Ghost to make backup snapshots, the files (on ZFS) come out
corrupt.They are not corrupt on UFS backed SAMBA service.