Shawn Joy wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
Shawn Joy wrote:
Hi All,
Its been a while since I touched zfs. Is the below still the case
with zfs and hardware raid array? Do we still need to provide two
luns from the hardware raid then zfs mirror those two luns?
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/faq/#hardwareraid
Need, no. Should, yes.
The last two points on that page are key:
"Overall, ZFS functions as designed with SAN-attached devices, but if
you expose simpler devices to ZFS, you can better leverage all
available features.
In summary, if you use ZFS with SAN-attached devices, you can take
advantage of the self-healing features of ZFS by configuring
redundancy in your ZFS storage pools even though redundancy is
available at a lower hardware level."
If you don't give ZFS any redundancy, you risk loosing you pool if
there is data corruption.
Is this the same risk for data corruption as UFS on hardware based luns?
Not really, UFS wouldn't notice, ZFS would and the single device pool
would be enter a faulted state.
If we present one LUN to ZFS and choose not to ZFS mirror or do a
raidz pool of that LUN is ZFS able to handle disk or raid controllers
failures on the hardware array?
I guess the only answer id "it depends". A LUN is in effect just
another drive, so if the failure is managed by the SAN, ZFS wouldn't know.
Does ZFS handle intermittent controller outages on the raid
controllers the same as what UFS would?
I haven't used ZFS with a SAN device, but pulling a drive causes ZFS to
mark it unavailable and the pool degraded.
--
Ian.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
