Hi Guys, SO...
>From what I can tell from this thread ZFS if VERY fussy about managing >writes,reads and failures. It wants to be bit perfect. So if you use the >hardware that comes with a given solution (in my case an Engenio 6994) to >manage failures you risk a) bad writes that don't get picked up due to >corruption from write cache to disk b) failures due to data changes that ZFS >is unaware of that the hardware imposes when it tries to fix itself. So now I have a $70K+ lump that's useless for what it was designed for. I should have spent $20K on a JBOD. But since I didn't do that, it sounds like a traditional model works best (ie. UFS et al) for the type of hardware I have. No sense paying for something and not using it. And by using ZFS just as a method for ease of file system growth and management I risk much more corruption. The other thing I haven't heard is why NOT to use ZFS. Or people who don't like it for some reason or another. Comments? Thanks, Jeff PS - the responses so far have been great and are much appreciated! Keep 'em coming... This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
