On 2013-01-24 15:24, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
For me the reliability ZFS offers is far more important than pure
performance.
Except it is on paper reliability.
This "on paper" reliability in practice saved a 20TB pool. See one of my
previous emails. Any other filesystem or hardware/software raid without
per-disk checksums would have failed. Silent corruption of non-important
files would be the best case, complete filesystem death by important
metadata corruption as the worst case.
I've been using ZFS for 3 years in many systems. Biggest one has 44
disks and 4 ZFS pools - this one survived SAS expander disconnects, a
few kernel panics and countless power failures (UPS only holds for a few
hours).
So far I've not lost a single ZFS pool or any data stored.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
