It seems to me that the optimal scenario would be network filesystems on top of ZFS, so you can get the data portability of a SAN, but let ZFS make all of the decisions. Short of that, ZFS on SAN-attached JBODs would give a similar benefit. Having benefited tremendously from being able to easily detach and re-attach storage because of a SAN, its difficult to give that capability up to get maximum ZFS-benefit.
Best Regards, Jason On 12/18/06, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
comment far below... Jonathan Edwards wrote: > > On Dec 18, 2006, at 16:13, Torrey McMahon wrote: > >> Al Hopper wrote: >>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure >>>>> SAN environment? What will and will not work? >>>>> >>>>> From some of the information I have been gathering >>>>> it doesn't appear that ZFS was intended to operate >>>>> in a SAN environment. >>>>> >>>> This might answer your question: >>>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/faq/#hardwareraid >>>> >>> >>> The section entitled "Does ZFS work with SAN-attached devices?" does not >>> make it clear the (some would say) dire effects of not having pool >>> redundancy. I think that FAQ should clearly spell out the downside; >>> i.e., >>> where ZFS will "say" (Sorry Charlie) "pool is corrupt". >>> >>> A FAQ should always emphasize the real-world downsides to poor decisions >>> made by the reader. Not delivering "bad news" does the reader a >>> dis-service IMHO. >> >> >> I'd say that it's clearly described in the FAQ. If you push to hard >> people will infer that SANs are broken if you use ZFS on top of them >> or vice versa. The only bit that looks a little questionable to my >> eyes is ... >> >> Overall, ZFS functions as designed with SAN-attached devices, but if >> you expose simpler devices to ZFS, you can better leverage all >> available features. >> >> What are "simpler devices"? (I could take a guess ... ) > > stone tablets in a room full of monkeys with chisels? > > The bottom line is ZFS wants to ultimately function as the controller cache > and eventually eliminate the blind data algorithms that they incorporate .. I don't get this impression at all. > the problem is that we can't really say that explicitly since we sell, > and much > of the enterprise operates with enterprise class arrays and integrated data > cache. The trick is in balancing who does what since you've really got > duplicate Virtualization, RAID, and caching options open to you. In general, the closer to the user you can make policy decisions, the better decisions you can make. The fact that we've had 10 years of RAID arrays acting like dumb block devices doesn't mean that will continue for the next 10 years :-) In the interim, we will see more and more intelligence move closer to the user. -- richard _______________________________________________ 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
