While you could have a wart-by-wart comparison, please remember that the biggest difference is that ZFS is free ($) and open source, while SF is costly (sometimes very costly) and closed source. The warts are just minor, mostly temporary, skin-deep issues. -- richard
Mike Gerdts wrote: > 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. > > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
