On 6/14/2011 3:47 PM, Adam Levin wrote: > 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. >
I'll also point out that I might use a Nexenta-stor type product in production with HA after some testing. They have a lot of big-name customers. Also Berkeley communications integrates Nexenta and OpenIndiana for oil and gas (big data). I'm not sure what their availability requirements are, but the HA seems to work for them. We are still using the Production versions of Solaris. In my benchmarking the Sol10U9 performance significantly better than Nexenta or OpenIndiana, but hopefully that gap will be closing with the Illumos release. _______________________________________________ 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/
