On Dec 28, 2007 8:40 AM, Sengor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Real comparison of features should include scenarios such as: > > - how ZFS/VxVM compare in BCV like environments (eg. when volumes are > presented back to the same host) > - how they all cope with various multipathing solutions out there > - Filesystem vs Volume snapshots > - Portability within cluster like environments (SCSI reserves & LUN > visibility to multiple synchronous hosts) > - Disaster recovery scenarios > - Ease/Difficulty with data migrations across physical arrays > - Boot volumes > - Online vs Offline attribute/parameter changes
Very good list! > I can't think of more right now, it's way past midnight here ;) How about these? - Integration with backup system - Active-active cluster (parallel file system) capabilities - Integration with OS maintenance activities (install, upgrade, patching, etc.) - Relative performance on anticipated workload - Staffing issues (what do people know, how many hours to train, how long before proficiency) - Supportability on multiple platforms at the site (e.g. Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, AIX, ...) - Impact of failure modes (missing license key especially major system changes, on-disk corruption) - Opportunities to do things previously not possible ZFS doesn't win on many of those, but with the improvements that I have seen throughout the storage stack it is somewhat likely that the required improvements are already on the roadmap. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
