On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:17:05AM -0800, Jeffery Malloch wrote: > 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.
Well, ZFS with HW RAID makes sense in some cases. However, it seems that if you are unwilling to lose 50% disk space to RAID 10 or two mirrored HW RAID arrays, you either use RAID 0 on the array with ZFS RAIDZ/RAIDZ2 on top of that or a JBOD with ZFS RAIDZ/RAIDZ2 on top of that. -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
