mmusa...@east.sun.com said: > What benefit are you hoping zfs will provide in this situation? Examine > your situation carefully and determine what filesystem works best for you. > There are many reasons to use ZFS, but if your configuration isn't set up to > take advantage of those reasons, then there's a disconnect somewhere.
How about if your config can only take advantage of _some_ of those reasons to use ZFS? There are plenty of benefits to using ZFS on a single bare hard drive, and those benefits apply to using it on an expensive SAN array. It's up to each individual to decide if adding redundancy is worthwhile or not. I'm not saying ZFS is perfect. And, ZFS is indeed better when it can make use of redundancy. But ZFS has lost data even with such redundancy, so having it does not confer magical protection from all disasters. Anyway, here's a note describing our experience with this situation: We've been using ZFS here on two hardware RAID fiberchannel arrays, with no ZFS-level redundancy, starting September-2006 -- roughly 6TB of data, checksums enabled, weekly scrubs, regular tape backups. So far there has been not one checksum error detected on these arrays. We've had dumb SAN connectivity losses, complete power failures on arrays, FC switches, and/or file servers, and so on, but no loss of data. Before ZFS, we used a combination of SAM-QFS and UFS filesystems on the same arrays, and ZFS has proved much easier to manage, reducing data loss due to human errors in volume and space management. The checksum feature makes filesystems without it into second-class offerings, in my opinion. Is anyone else tired of seeing the word redundancy? (:-) Regards, Marion _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
