Reco <recovery...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:33:15AM +0200, lee wrote: >> > A correct guess. A recommended minimum is kernel 3.14 - [2]. >> >> So this is a rather new feature. How reliable and how well does it >> work? > > I wouldn't trust my data to that feature :) It has 'experimental' and > 'biohazard' labels strapped everywhere. > I prefer trusty mdadm for any RAID.
One of the disadvantages with mdadm is that it can severely impact performance. That doesn't mean that raid-5 with btrfs wouldn't have this disadvantage, too. >> > But, ZFS won't allow you to make a conventional RAID5 either :) >> >> I know --- and I don't require RAID-5. What I require is what RAID-5 >> provides, i. e. redundancy without wasting as many disks as other RAID >> levels. I also like the better performance of hardware RAID compared to >> software RAID. IIRC, ZFS would provide efficient redundancy and be >> safer than a RAID controller because of it's checksumming. I'd have to >> try it out to see what kind of performance degradation or gain it would >> bring about. > > A real story. A recent one, a couple of weeks fresh. > One shop buys *very* expensive Sun SuperCluster T4 with Solaris 11 and, > of course, ZFS. Configures a couple of LDOMs on it. So far, so good. > And then - it happens. A simple oversight - they filled up to 100% one > of LDOMs' root zpool. > They say that is should not happen, yet I've seen it with my own eyes - > ZFS happily ate (i.e. they disappeared without a trace) a couple of > shared libraries, rendering some basic OS utilities unusable. > So, what good was those magical ZFS checksums did? And not having the checksumming has never caused a problem for me, as far as I can tell ... Still that doesn't mean that it hasn't. >> >> They need to get these license issues fixed ... >> > >> > Back in the old days CDDL was chosen by Sun especially so that >> > this license issue would *never* be fixed. >> > Currently Oracle could re-license ZFS to anything they want, including >> > GPL-compatible license, but why would *they* do it? >> >> Why don't they? > > Simple - they sell servers based on Solaris as storage appliances (and > they nearly 10 years behind ZFS on Linux as far as ZFS is concerned). Who > will buy these servers if the same can be achieved with cheap Linux > server? Oracle is greedy. But when it eats files and is 10 years behind, why are people buying it? So how can we safely store large amounts of data? -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87oatbtsr9....@yun.yagibdah.de
