Robert Milkowski writes: > Hello przemolicc, > > Friday, December 22, 2006, 10:02:44 AM, you wrote: > > ppf> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 04:45:34PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: > >> Hello Shawn, > >> > >> Thursday, December 21, 2006, 4:28:39 PM, you wrote: > >> > >> SJ> All, > >> > >> SJ> I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using > >> SJ> two LUNS from a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features > >> SJ> than UFS does on one LUN from a SAN (i.e is it less stable). > >> > >> With only one LUN you still get error detection which UFS doesn't give > >> you. You still can use snapshots, clones, quotas, etc. so in general > >> you still have more features than UFS. > >> > >> Now when in comes to stability - depends. UFS is for years in use > >> while ZFS much younger. > >> > >> More and more people are using ZFS in production and while there're > >> some corner cases mostly performance related, it works really good. > >> And I haven't heard of verified data lost due to ZFS. I've been using > >> ZFS for quite some time (much sooner than it was available in SX) and > >> I haven't also lost any data. > > ppf> Robert, > > ppf> I don't understand why not loosing any data is an advantage of ZFS. > ppf> No filesystem should lose any data. It is like saying that an advantage > > I wasn't saying this is advantage. Of course no file system should > lose your data - it's just that when new file systems show up on > market people do not trust them in general at first - which is > expected precaution. > > Part of such perception is Linux - due to different development type > you often get software badly written and tested - try to look at > google how many people lost their data with RaiserFS for example. > The same happened for many people with XFS on Linux. > > That's why I thought emphasis on ZFS that it hasn't lost my data even if > it's new-born file system and I've been using it for years (as other > users) is important, especially for people mostly from Linux world. > > ps. I really belive development style in Open Solaris is better than > in Linux (kernel). >
The fact that most FS do not manage the disk write caches does mean you're at risk of data lost for those FS. -r > -- > Best regards, > Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://milek.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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
