Gino wrote: >>> Richard, thank you for your detailed reply. >>> Unfortunately an other reason to stay with UFS in >> production .. >>> >> IMHO, maturity is the primary reason to stick with >> UFS. To look at >> this through the maturity lens, UFS is the great >> grandfather living on >> life support (prune juice and oxygen) while ZFS is >> the late adolescent, >> soon to bloom into a young adult. The torch will pass >> when ZFS >> becomes the preferred root file system. >> -- richard > > I agree with you but don't understand why Sun has integrated ZFS on Solaris > and declared it as stable. > Sun Sales tell you to trash your old redundant arrays and go with jbod and > ZFS... > but don't tell you that you probably will need to reboot your SF25k because > of a disk failure!! :(
To put this in perspective, no system on the planet today handles all faults. I would even argue that building such a system is theoretically impossible. So the subset of faults which ZFS covers which is different than the subset that UFS covers and different than what SVM covers. For example, we *know* that ZFS has allowed people to detect and recover from faulty SAN switches, borken RAID arrays, and accidental deletions which UFS could have never even detected. There are some known gaps which are being closed in ZFS, but it is simply not the case that UFS is superior in all RAS respects to ZFS. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
