On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > You seem to perceive ZFS as a less mature product.
I absolutely do -- less mature than NetApp and EMC. That's not to say it's not a *good* product, but I think you'd be in a difficult position trying to debate that it's more mature than some of the oldest, most established storage systems on the planet today... > I know I've had it in > production already for the life cycle of one server. Formerly netapp, > replaced 3 years ago by ZFS, at that time I was nervous about maturity. And > it all panned out - it was a huge win. I'm certainly glad to hear that, and I hope your success continues. I have had no adverse events yet with ZFS testing here, but then I'm not yet doing them myself -- our UNIX guys are working some with it, though, and seem to like it so far. > I would say ZFS dedup is not yet mature. But aside from that... I have heard some anecdotal evidence which I have yet to believe about data corruption, since I have seen no proof for it. However, Doug even pointed out some occasional gotchas. So, it's going places, and I think it will probably be huge someday, but right now if I have business-critical data, I would not choose to put it on ZFS if I could avoid it. -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/
