Karsten W Rohrbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> emc uses a bsd based filesystem implementation.
No, it doesn't; an EMC Symmetrix doesn't have a file system at the disk
level. Are you talking about the partitioning?
> if one bus fails nothing goes wrong, but if you got unrecoverable data
> errors on a controller or other bad components, the filesystem gets
> damaged.
Yes, with any disk subsystem if you have undetectable controller errors,
bad things happen.
> due to it's nature, being a ufs/ffs,
EMC Symmetrix do not use UFS/FFS unless the host you're connecting to the
disk chooses to format the disks that way. If you don't want to deal with
UFS, use a logging file system.
> i personally prefer the netapps (although the filesystems are somewhat
> limited in size compared to emc or ibm)
A NetApp is a completely different sort of machine than an EMC. A NetApp
exports files over protocol rather than as a simple SCSI device.
Maybe you're talking about EMC's Clarion stuff, which is different, or
some of their newer experimental SAN stuff? We've been using EMC disk
here for quite some time and I don't recognize anything in your
descriptions even remotely like what we're running.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
