> You never know when end-to-end data consistency will start to really > matter. Just the other day I attended the cloud conference where > some Amazon EC2 customers were swapping stories of Amazon's networking > "stack" malfunctioning and silently corrupting data that was written > onto EBS. All of sudden, something like ZFS started to sound like > a really good idea to them.
i know we need to bow down before zfs's greatness, but i still have some questions. ☺ does ec2 corrupt all one's data en mass? how do you do meaningful redundency in a cloud where one controls none of the failure-prone pieces. finally, if p is the probability of a lost block, when does p become too large for zfs' redundency to overcome failures? does this depend on the amount of i/o one does on the data or does zfs scrub at a minimum rate anyway. if it does, that would be expensive. maybe ec2 is heads amazon wins, tails you loose? - erik
