On 5/4/07, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes - I won't argue that ZFS can be applied exactly as you state above.
However, ZFS is no substitute for bad practices that include:
- not proactively replacing mechanical components *before* they fail
- not having maintenance policies in place
I mainly was speaking on behalf of the home users. If any data is
important you obviously get what you pay for. However I think ZFS can
help improve the integrity - perhaps you don't know the disk is
starting to fail until it has corrupted some data. If ZFS was in
place, some if not all of the data would still have been safe. I
replace my disks when they start to get corrupt, and I am still always
nervous and have high-stress data moves off failing disks to the new
ones/temporary storage. ZFS in my opinion is a proactive way to
minimize data loss. It's obviously not an excuse to let your hardware
rot for years.
And, while I'm working this hardware wish list, please ... a PCI-Express
based version of the SuperMicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 8-port Marvell based disk
controller card. Sun ... are you listening?
Yeah - I've got a wishlist too; port-multiplier friendly PCI-e
adapters... Marvell or SI or anything as long as it's PCI-e and has 4
or 5 eSATA ports that can work with a port multipler (for 4-5 disks
per port) ... I don't think there is a clear fully supported option
yet or I'd be using it right now.
- mike
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
