Ahmed Kamal wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We're a small Linux shop (20 users). I am currently using a Linux > server to host our 2TBs of data. I am considering better options for > our data storage needs. I mostly need instant snapshots and better > data protection. I have been considering EMC NS20 filers and Zfs based > solutions. For the Zfs solutions, I am considering NexentaStor product > installed on a pogoLinux StorageDirector box. The box will be mostly > sharing 2TB over NFS, nothing fancy. > > Now, my question is I need to assess the zfs reliability today Q4-2008 > in comparison to an EMC solution. Something like EMC is pretty mature > and used at the most demanding sites. Zfs is fairly new, and from time > to time I have heard it had some pretty bad bugs. However, the EMC > solution is like 4X more expensive. I need to somehow "quantify" the > relative quality level, in order to judge whether or not I should be > paying all that much to EMC. The only really important reliability > measure to me, is not having data loss! > Is there any real measure like "percentage of total corruption of a > pool" that can assess such a quality, so you'd tell me zfs has pool > failure rate of 1 in a 10^6, while EMC has a rate of 1 in a 10^7. If > not, would you guys rate such a zfs solution as ??% the reliability of > an EMC solution ?
EMC does not, and cannot, provide end-to-end data validation. So how would measure its data reliability? If you search the ZFS-discuss archives, you will find instances where people using high-end storage also had data errors detected by ZFS. So, you should consider them complementary rather than adversaries. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
