Hi Paul,

Your 1-3 is very sensible advice and I must ask about this

>I have yet to have any data loss with ZFS.

Maybe this goes without saying, but I think you are using
ZFS redundancy.



On 10/18/11 08:52, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Gregory Shaw <greg.s...@oracle.com> wrote:

Another item that made me nervous was my experience with ZFS.  Even when
called 'ready for production', a number of bugs were found that were pretty 
They've since been fixed (years ago), but there were some surprises there that 
 rather not encounter on a Linux system.

    I know that I have been really spoiled by UFS. It has been around
for so long that it has been really optimized, some might even say,
optimized beyond the point of diminishing returns :-) UFS is amazingly
and has very reasonable performance, given it's roots. I did not have
to live through the early days of UFS and the pain of finding bugs. I
_am_ living through that with ZFS :-(

    Having said that, I have yet to have any data loss with ZFS. I
have developed a number of simple rules I follow with ZFS:

1. OS and DATA go on different zpools on different physical drives (if
at all possible)

2. Do NOT move drives around without first exporting any zpools on those drives.

3. Do NOT let a system see drives with more than one OS zpool at the
same time (I know you _can_ do this safely, but I have seen too many
horror stories on this list that I just avoid it).

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to