On 22.12.09 18:42, Roman Naumenko wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
Applying classic RAID terms to zfs is just plain
wrong and misleading since zfs does not directly implement these classic RAID
approaches
even though it re-uses some of the algorithms for data recovery.
Details do matter.
I wouldn't agree.
SUN introduced just another marketing names for the well known things, even
adding some new functionality.
raid6 is raid6, not matter how you name it: raidz2, raid-dp, raid-ADG or
somehow else.
Sounds nice, but it's is just buzzwords.
Sorry, but that isn't correct. Or to be correct: It depends on your
definition.... when you just consider RAID5 as "Stripeset with an
interleaved Parity" then you may be right. But the differences of RAID5
to RAIDZ (and the same of for RAID6 to RAIDZ2) are vast enough to
justify an own name. Just look at the different parity handling.
Otherwise this would like denying diesel and and gasoline engines
different names just because they are both internal combustion piston
engines ...
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
