On 11/16/10 20:23, Adam Vande More wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Ivan Voras<ivo...@freebsd.org>  wrote:

Actually, I don't see anything incorrect in the above archive post.

I do.  Cherry picking ZFS deficiencies without addressing the proper
documented way to work around them or at even acknowledging it's possible to
do so is FUD.  It's not like traditional RAID doesn't have it's own set of
gotcha's and proper usage environment.

Well, you are also doing cherry picking of *good* features so I'd say there's no conceptual difference here :)

NHF, I'm not attacking you; as with everything else, people need to test technologies they are going to use and decide if they are good enough.

Dismissing the value of checksumming your data seems foolhardy to say the
least.  The place where silent data corruption most frequently occurs, in
large archive type filesystems, also happens to be one of the prime usage
candidates of RAIDZ.

Now if only the default checksum wasn't so weak:


There are no details about its "fixed" status so I think the problem is still there.

(of course, stronger options are available, etc. - and it's better than nothing)

As for specific problems with ZFS, I'm also pessimistic right now - it's
enough to read the freebsd-fs @ freebsd.org and zfs-discuss @
opensolaris.org lists to see that there are frequent problems and
outstanding issues. You can almost grep for people losing data on ZFS
weekly. Compare this to the volume of complaints about UFS in both OSes
(almost none).

There are actually very few stories of ZFS/zpool loss on the FreeBSD
list(some are misidentifications of issues like this:
another source I would point you to is http://forums.freebsd.org/.  The
single recent valid one I can find involves a pool on geli, but I will grant
you that it happens at all is quite disconcerting.

Yes, especially since GELI is very sensitive to corruption.

But I'm also counting cases like the inability to replace a drive which failed, log device corruptions and similar things which will, if not result in a totally broken file system, result in a file system which is wedged in a way that requires it to be re-created.

In many of those, though, it's not clear if the error is in ZFS or FreeBSD.

UFS has it's own set of
issues/limitations so regardless of what you pick make sure you're aware of
them and take issues to address them before problems occur.

Of course, UFS *is* old and "classical" in its implementation - it would be just as wrong to expect fancy features from UFS like to expect such time-tested stability from ZFS.

And new technologies need time to settle down: there are still occasional reports of SUJ problems.

Personally, I have encountered only stability issues and currently have only one server with ZFS in production (reduction from several of them about a year ago), but I'm constantly testing it in staging. If the v28 import doesn't destabilize it in 9, I'm going to give it another chance.

freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to