On February 11, 2009 3:02:48 PM -0600 Tim <t...@tcsac.net> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Frank Cusack <fcus...@fcusack.com> wrote:
if you have 100TB of data, wouldn't you have a completely redundant
storage network -- dual FC switches on different electrical supplies,
etc. i've never designed or implemented a storage network before but
such designs seem common in the literature and well supported by
Solaris. i have done such designs with data networks and such
redundancy is quite common.
i mean, that's a lot of data to go missing due to a single device
failing -- which it will.
not to say it's not a problem with zfs, just that in the real world,
it should be mitigated since your storage network design would overcome
a single failure *anyway* -- regardless of zfs.
It's hardly uncommon for an entire datacenter to go down, redundant power
or not. When it does, if it means I have to restore hundreds of
terabytes if not petabytes from tape instead of just restoring the files
that were corrupted or running an fsck, we've got issues.
Isn't this easily worked around by having UPS power in addition to whatever
the data center supplies?
I've been there with entire data center shutdown (or partial, but entire
as far as my gear is concerned), but for really critical stuff we've had
our own UPS.
I don't know if that really works for 100TB and up though. That's a lot
of disk == a lot of UPS capacity. And again, I'm not trying to take away
from the fact that this is a significant zfs problem.
-frank
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
