[editorial comment below :-)]
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
I'm glad you asked this question. We are currently expecting 3511
storage sub-systems for our servers. We were wondering about their
configuration as well. This ZFS thing throws a wrench in the old
line think ;-) Seriously, we now have to put on a new hat to figure
out the best way to leverage both the storage sub-system as well as
ZFS.
[for the archives]
There is *nothing wrong* with treating ZFS like UFS when configuring
with LUNs
hosted on RAID arrays. It is true that you will miss some of the
self-healing
features of ZFS, but at least you will know when the RAID array has
munged your
data -- a feature missing on UFS and most other file systems.
Of you just offer ZFS multiple LUNs from the RAID array.
The issue is putting ZFS on a single LUN be it a disk in a JBOD or a
LUN offered from a HW RAID array. If someone goes wrong and the LUN
becomes inaccessible then ... blamo! You're toasted. If ZFS detects a
data inconsistency then it can't look to an other block for a mirrored
copy, ala ZFS mirror, or to a parity block, ala RAIDZ.
Right, I think Richard's point is that even if you just give ZFS a
single LUN, ZFS is still more reliable than other filesystems (eg, due
to its checksums to prevent silent data corruption and multiple copies
of metadata to lessen the hurt of small amounts of data loss).
Richard pines for ditto data blocks :-)
-- richard
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
