On Tue, 14 Jun 2011, Doug Hughes wrote: > That said, zfs is solid, solid, solid for integrity of the data, but > it's nowhere near as solid for high availability environments as you'd > get out of a NetApp, BlueArc, or the like. > > I will continue to use it in production on ~30 servers.
That's good to hear. It's an interesting (and important) distinction between data integrity and data availability. :) I wouldn't use it for business-critical applications (yet), but that doesn't mean I wouldn't use it in production at all. One of the most interesting aspects of putting together an implementation of ZFS, to me, is figuring out what kind of infrastructure to build it on. We're all used to "enterprise" class storage that has a lot of built-in protection against hardware failures. ZFS mitigates a lot of that and allows the use of much less expensive infrastructure, which I find fascinating. -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/
