On 29-Nov-06, at 8:53 AM, Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:48:46PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
Her original configuration wasn't redundant, so she should expect
this kind of manual recovery from time to time. Seems a logical
conclusion to me? Or is this one of those once-in-a-lifetime strikes?
That's not an entirely true statement. Her configuration is redundant
from a traditional disk subsystem point of view. I think the problem
here is that the old disk subsystem mindsets no longer apply with the
way something like ZFS works.
That is very true from what I've seen. ZFS definitely has a problem
cracking the old-think, but then any generational shift does,
historically! (I won't bore with other examples.)
This is going to be the largest stumbling
block of all of them I believe, not anything technical.
If I had the money and time, I'd build a hardware RAID controller that
could do ZFS natively.
We already have one: Thumper. :)
But in terms of replacing the traditional RAID subsystem: I don't see
how such a design could address faults between the isolated
controller and the host (in the way that software ZFS does). Am I
missing something in your idea?
The "old" think is that it is sufficient to have a very complex and
expensive RAID controller which claims to be reliable storage. But of
course it's not: No matter how excellent your subsystem is, it's
still isolated by unreliable components (and non-checksummed RAID is
inherently at risk anyway).
--Toby
It would be dead simple (*I* think anyway) to make
it transparent to the ZFS layer. ;)
-brian
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
