Matty wrote: > On Jan 18, 2008 7:35 AM, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sengor wrote: >>> On 1/17/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> Pardon my ignorance, but is ZFS with compression safe to use in a >>>>> production environment? >>>> Yes, why wouldn't it be ? If it wasn't safe it wouldn't have been >>>> delivered. >>> Few reasons - >>> http://prefetch.net/blog/index.php/2007/11/28/is-zfs-ready-for-primetime/ >> The article (not the comments) is complete free of content and is scare >> mongering. It doesn't even say wither this is ZFS on Solaris (vs BSD or >> MacOS X) never mind what release or the configuration of the pool or >> even what the actual "bug" apparently. Was the pool redundant if there >> were bugs what are the bug numbers and are they fixed. > > I don't think this is scare mongering at all. I wrote the blog entry > after a ZFS bug (6454482) corrupted a pool on one of our production > servers, and a yet unidentified bug (which appears to be different > than 6454482) corrupted a pool on another system. ZFS is an incredible > file system, but based on the fact that we lost data twice, I am > somewhat hesitant to continue to using it.
I have no issue at all with people blogging bugs and comments. What I had (and have) an issue with is when no details are given that is when it is scare mongering and FUD. Provide at least a little detail, eg what release you are running on and at least a symptom of the problem (eg zpool status said everything was faulted), ideally as much of the storage config as you can - particularly the pool config (mirror vs raidz vs single disk). -- Darren J Moffat _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
