Re: [zfs-discuss] Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN from a SAN
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 04:45:34PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Shawn, Thursday, December 21, 2006, 4:28:39 PM, you wrote: SJ All, SJ I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using SJ two LUNS from a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features SJ than UFS does on one LUN from a SAN (i.e is it less stable). With only one LUN you still get error detection which UFS doesn't give you. You still can use snapshots, clones, quotas, etc. so in general you still have more features than UFS. Now when in comes to stability - depends. UFS is for years in use while ZFS much younger. More and more people are using ZFS in production and while there're some corner cases mostly performance related, it works really good. And I haven't heard of verified data lost due to ZFS. I've been using ZFS for quite some time (much sooner than it was available in SX) and I haven't also lost any data. Robert, I don't understand why not loosing any data is an advantage of ZFS. No filesystem should lose any data. It is like saying that an advantage of football player is that he/she plays football (he/she should do that !) or an advantage of chef is that he/she cooks (he/she should do that !). Every filesystem should _save_ our data, not lose it. Regards przemol -- Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! http://link.interia.pl/f199e ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN from a SAN
Hello przemolicc, Friday, December 22, 2006, 10:02:44 AM, you wrote: ppf On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 04:45:34PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Shawn, Thursday, December 21, 2006, 4:28:39 PM, you wrote: SJ All, SJ I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using SJ two LUNS from a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features SJ than UFS does on one LUN from a SAN (i.e is it less stable). With only one LUN you still get error detection which UFS doesn't give you. You still can use snapshots, clones, quotas, etc. so in general you still have more features than UFS. Now when in comes to stability - depends. UFS is for years in use while ZFS much younger. More and more people are using ZFS in production and while there're some corner cases mostly performance related, it works really good. And I haven't heard of verified data lost due to ZFS. I've been using ZFS for quite some time (much sooner than it was available in SX) and I haven't also lost any data. ppf Robert, ppf I don't understand why not loosing any data is an advantage of ZFS. ppf No filesystem should lose any data. It is like saying that an advantage I wasn't saying this is advantage. Of course no file system should lose your data - it's just that when new file systems show up on market people do not trust them in general at first - which is expected precaution. Part of such perception is Linux - due to different development type you often get software badly written and tested - try to look at google how many people lost their data with RaiserFS for example. The same happened for many people with XFS on Linux. That's why I thought emphasis on ZFS that it hasn't lost my data even if it's new-born file system and I've been using it for years (as other users) is important, especially for people mostly from Linux world. ps. I really belive development style in Open Solaris is better than in Linux (kernel). -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN from a SAN
Robert Milkowski writes: Hello przemolicc, Friday, December 22, 2006, 10:02:44 AM, you wrote: ppf On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 04:45:34PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Shawn, Thursday, December 21, 2006, 4:28:39 PM, you wrote: SJ All, SJ I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using SJ two LUNS from a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features SJ than UFS does on one LUN from a SAN (i.e is it less stable). With only one LUN you still get error detection which UFS doesn't give you. You still can use snapshots, clones, quotas, etc. so in general you still have more features than UFS. Now when in comes to stability - depends. UFS is for years in use while ZFS much younger. More and more people are using ZFS in production and while there're some corner cases mostly performance related, it works really good. And I haven't heard of verified data lost due to ZFS. I've been using ZFS for quite some time (much sooner than it was available in SX) and I haven't also lost any data. ppf Robert, ppf I don't understand why not loosing any data is an advantage of ZFS. ppf No filesystem should lose any data. It is like saying that an advantage I wasn't saying this is advantage. Of course no file system should lose your data - it's just that when new file systems show up on market people do not trust them in general at first - which is expected precaution. Part of such perception is Linux - due to different development type you often get software badly written and tested - try to look at google how many people lost their data with RaiserFS for example. The same happened for many people with XFS on Linux. That's why I thought emphasis on ZFS that it hasn't lost my data even if it's new-born file system and I've been using it for years (as other users) is important, especially for people mostly from Linux world. ps. I really belive development style in Open Solaris is better than in Linux (kernel). The fact that most FS do not manage the disk write caches does mean you're at risk of data lost for those FS. -r -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN from a SAN
Roch - PAE wrote: The fact that most FS do not manage the disk write caches does mean you're at risk of data lost for those FS. Does ZFS? I thought it just turned it on in the places where we had previously turned if off. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN from a SAN
Hello Torrey, Friday, December 22, 2006, 9:17:46 PM, you wrote: TM Roch - PAE wrote: The fact that most FS do not manage the disk write caches does mean you're at risk of data lost for those FS. TM Does ZFS? I thought it just turned it on in the places where we had TM previously turned if off. ZFS send flush cache command after each transaction group so it's sure transaction is on stable storage. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN from a SAN
Robert Milkowski wrote On 12/22/06 13:40,: Hello Torrey, Friday, December 22, 2006, 9:17:46 PM, you wrote: TM Roch - PAE wrote: The fact that most FS do not manage the disk write caches does mean you're at risk of data lost for those FS. TM Does ZFS? I thought it just turned it on in the places where we had TM previously turned if off. ZFS send flush cache command after each transaction group so it's sure transaction is on stable storage. ... and after every fsync, O_DSYNC, etc that writes out intent log blocks. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Difference between ZFS and UFS with one LUN from a SAN
Hello Shawn, Thursday, December 21, 2006, 4:28:39 PM, you wrote: SJ All, SJ I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using SJ two LUNS from a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features SJ than UFS does on one LUN from a SAN (i.e is it less stable). With only one LUN you still get error detection which UFS doesn't give you. You still can use snapshots, clones, quotas, etc. so in general you still have more features than UFS. Now when in comes to stability - depends. UFS is for years in use while ZFS much younger. More and more people are using ZFS in production and while there're some corner cases mostly performance related, it works really good. And I haven't heard of verified data lost due to ZFS. I've been using ZFS for quite some time (much sooner than it was available in SX) and I haven't also lost any data. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
