> I don't mean to be offensive Russel, but if you do > ever return to ZFS, please promise me that you will > never, ever, EVER run it virtualized on top of NTFS > (a.k.a. worst file system ever) in a production > environment. Microsoft Windows is a horribly > unreliable operating system in situations where > things like protecting against data corruption are > important. Microsoft knows this
Oh WOW! Whether or not our friend Russel virtualized on top of NTFS (he didn't - he used raw disk access) this point is amazing! System5 - based on this thread I'd say you can't really make this claim at all. Solaris suffered a crash and the ZFS filesystem lost EVERYTHING! And there aren't even any recovery tools? HANG YOUR HEADS!!! Recovery from the same situation is EASY on NTFS. There are piles of tools out there that will recover the file system, and failing that, locate and extract data. The key parts of the file system are stored in multiple locations on the disk just in case. It's been this way for over 10 years. I'd say it seems from this thread that my data is a lot safer on NTFS than it is on ZFS! I can't believe my eyes as I read all these responses blaming system engineering and hiding behind ECC memory excuses and "well, you know, ZFS is intended for more Professional systems and not consumer devices, etc etc." My goodness! You DO realize that Sun has this website called opensolaris.org which actually proposes to have people use ZFS on commodity hardware, don't you? I don't see a huge warning on that site saying "ATTENTION: YOU PROBABLY WILL LOSE ALL YOUR DATA". I recently flirted with putting several large Unified Storage 7000 systems on our corporate network. The hype about ZFS is quite compelling and I had positive experience in my lab setting. But because of not having Solaris capability on our staff we went in another direction instead. Reading this thread, I'm SO glad we didn't put ZFS in production in ANY way. Guys, this is the real world. Stuff happens. It doesn't matter what the reason is - hardware lying about cache commits, out-of-order commits, failure to use ECC memory, whatever. It is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable for the filesystem to be entirely lost. No excuse or rationalization of any type can be justified. There MUST be at least the base suite of tools to deal with this stuff. without it, ZFS simply isn't ready yet. I am saving a copy of this thread to show my colleagues and also those Sun Microsystems sales people that keep calling. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
