Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote: > If you're planning to do one as primary, and one as backup, I am > biased toward ZFS...
Yes, the block-level replication feature to a 2nd server is an appealing feature of ZFS. Even more compelling is the block-level snapshotting that ZFS provides. (Is there any other solution outside of a NetApp file or BtrFS compare in this area? Maybe with vast quantities of cheap storage, the space inefficiency of snapshots is less of a concern.) > ...ZFS on linux. Apparently ZFS on linux has been working well now, > for at least a couple of years. We keep hearing rumors of that, but anyone actually using it? How about BtrFS now? I thought I saw some distributions switching to it as a primary FS. > Also, if you happen to choose ZFS, then you should definitely use > JBOD, and allow the software to do the raid for you. I mention this > because of your comment about JBOD vs RAID - sounds like maybe you > didn't already know? I would *only* consider software RAID. So when I say RAID that's what I mean. I lump ZFS's RAID-Z with other software RAID, and don't consider it JBOD, as it is not using 100% of the storage for data. Now whether the overhead of RAID-Z is low enough that it makes more sense to use that over Ext4 on JBOD for a low-reliability backup pool is another matter. -Tom -- Tom Metro The Perl Shop, Newton, MA, USA "Predictable On-demand Perl Consulting." http://www.theperlshop.com/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss