On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Agreed fully about disbelieving the company line... > And I would personally choose Oracle/ZFS in nearly every case over the > Netapp. ;-)
I'm very excited about ZFS. We've *just* began playing with it a little bit. I'm not sure I trust it enough for production, but I'm expecting very big things from it. At one time I believe several other vendors (besides Oracle) were looking at front-ending their SAN solutions with a BSD-ish box running ZFS for file shares. I'm really curious how that'll pan out, especially for performance. The only reason I kept my discussion to EMC and NetApp was because the original message said that the process was down to those two vendors. > ZFS does storage tiering, but it's more along the lines of caching. The > system chooses what will be in the various levels based on historical usage > patterns. You don't get to choose or influence the balancing very much. I > like more control knobs and gauges. While there's definitely something to be said for knobs and gauges, I have to be honest: the older I get, the less work I want to do, and if the array can be configured to do the work for me, yay! :) > Clearly my perspective has biased positives in favor of ZFS, but I haven't > had any Netapp in a few years, and I don't know much else. Can anyone shed > more positive light on either Netapp or anything else? Well, all I can say is that I think ZFS, as it matures, is going to become a very serious game-changer in enterprise storage and is a very strong competitor for NetApp, especially considering the costs. I think your summary is good -- ZFS does have a lot of benefits that they bring to the table. If the performance can stay good, they're going to be a very strong player in the market, I think. -Adam _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
