On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 06:36:37PM -0400, Toby Thain wrote: > > On 21-Aug-10, at 3:06 PM, Ross Walker wrote: > > >On Aug 21, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Bill Sommerfeld <bill.sommerf...@oracle.com > >> wrote: > > > >>On 08/21/10 10:14, Ross Walker wrote: > >>... > >>>Would I be better off forgoing resiliency for simplicity, putting > >>>all my faith into the Equallogic to handle data resiliency? > >> > >>IMHO, no; the resulting system will be significantly more brittle. > > > >Exactly how brittle I guess depends on the Equallogic system. > > If you don't let zfs manage redundancy, Bill is correct: it's a more > fragile system that *cannot* self heal data errors in the (deep) > stack. Quantifying the increased risk, is a question that Richard > Elling could probably answer :)
That's because ZFS does not have a way to handle a large class of storage designs, specifically the ones with raw storage and disk management being provided by reliable SAN devices. -- -Gary Mills- -Unix Group- -Computer and Network Services- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
