On February 11, 2009 2:07:47 AM -0800 Gino <dandr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree but I'd like to point out that the MAIN problem with ZFS is that because of a corruption you-ll loose ALL your data and there is no way to recover it. Consider an example where you have 100TB of data and a fc switch fails or other hw problem happens during I/O on a single file. With UFS you'll probably get corruption on that single file. With ZFS you'll loose all your data. I totally agree that ZFS is theoretically much much much much much better than UFS but in real world application having a risk to loose access to an entire pool is not acceptable.
if you have 100TB of data, wouldn't you have a completely redundant storage network -- dual FC switches on different electrical supplies, etc. i've never designed or implemented a storage network before but such designs seem common in the literature and well supported by Solaris. i have done such designs with data networks and such redundancy is quite common. i mean, that's a lot of data to go missing due to a single device failing -- which it will. not to say it's not a problem with zfs, just that in the real world, it should be mitigated since your storage network design would overcome a single failure *anyway* -- regardless of zfs. -frank _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
