Hi Przemol, I think migration is a really important feature...think I said that... ;-) SAN/RAID is not awful...frankly there's not been better solution (outside of NetApp's WAFL) till ZFS. SAN/RAID just has its own reliability issues you accept unless you don't have to....ZFS :-)
-J On 2/27/07, [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 ? Imagine also that some company is using SAN/RAID for a few years and doesn't have any problems (or once a few months). Also from time to time they need to migrate between arrays (for whatever reason). Now you come and say that they have unreliable SAN/RAID and you offer something new (ZFS) which is going to make it much more reliable but migration to another array will be painfull. What do you think what they choose ? BTW: I am a fan of ZFS. :-) przemol ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ustawiaj rekordy DNS dla swojej domeny >> http://link.interia.pl/f1a1a _______________________________________________ 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
