On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:29:04PM +1100, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 27/02/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 12:21:50PM -0700, Jason J. W. Williams wrote: > >> Hi Przemol, > >> > >> I think Casper had a good point bringing up the data integrity > >> features when using ZFS for RAID. Big companies do a lot of things > >> "just because that's the certified way" that end up biting them in the > >> rear. Trusting your SAN arrays is one of them. That all being said, > >> the need to do migrations is a very valid concern. > > > >Jason, > > > >I don't claim that SAN/RAID solutions are the best and don't have any > >mistakes/failures/problems. But if SAN/RAID is so bad why companies > >using them survive ? > > I think he was trying to say that people that believe that those > solutions are reliable just because they are based on SAN/RAID > technology and are not aware of the true situation surrounding them.
Is the "true situation" really so bad ? My feeling was that he was trying to say that there is no SAN/RAID solution without data integrity problem. Is it really true ? Does anybody have any paper (*) about percentage of problems in SAN/RAID because of data integrity ? Is it 5 % ? Or 30 % ? Or maybe 60 % ? (*) Maybe such paper/report should be a start point for our discussion. przemol ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Gdy nie ma dzieci... - zobacz >> http://link.interia.pl/f19eb _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
