most NAS systems that I've come across recently fall into 2 systems: 1) ZFS 2) Hardware RAID
there don't appear to be any other alternatives out there, and for my money I wouldn't ever go back to hardware RAID, if the controller fails you can lose everything! We're not a Sun company, although we have quite a bit of Sun/Fujitsu kit ... but our latest big boxes are all home-built Free-NAS systems, because they run ZFS. Jon On 12 January 2015 at 13:24, Hans J Albertsson <hans.j.alberts...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your views, the serial storage (tape mostly?) problem is news to > me but otherwise I concur. > > I was mostly asking about success and market presence, i e is ZFS being > widely used in any non-Sun/Oracle part of the workplace? > > Hans J. Albertsson > From my Nexus 5 > Den 12 jan 2015 12:38 skrev "Jonathan Adams" <t12nsloo...@gmail.com>: > > > ZFS is the most advanced filesystem on the planet IMHO, we have been > using > > it for 10+ years in production. > > > > There are reasons not to use it, but they are usually limitations not > > related to ZFS itself. > > > > We used to use tape backup for our old UFS systems, and it came as a > shock > > when we couldn't use tapes with ZFS easily ... but we just bit the bullet > > and realised that tapes were a dead technology, and just went for ZFS > > snapshots and keeping offline'd disks in the fireproof safe. > > > > There is some fragmentation, Solaris 11 has an incompatible version of > ZFS, > > at least for now. > > > > ZFS on Linux doesn't come compiled into the kernel by default, which > means > > that you can't have a ZFS root and update the kernel at the same time, > > without being _very_ _careful_! > > > > ZFS on USB in Solaris is a little flaky, but that's not down to the ZFS, > > it's down to the USB support, and when the ZFS root system fails the > whole > > system is unrecoverable. > > > > ... > > > > Seriously though, ZFS does more than any other file system, it is more > > robust and it's easier to manage ... all other filesystems are useless in > > comparison. > > > > BTRFS, don't go there, it's a poor man's ZFS, the Microsoft "equivalent" > > likewise shouldn't even be in the same sentence. > > > > Just my 2cents. > > > > Jon > > > > On 12 January 2015 at 11:13, Hans J. Albertsson < > > hans.j.alberts...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > I know FreeNAS has turned to ZFS only, OSv is ZFS only, and NAS > > Appliances > > > running ZFS turn up in unexpected places, but is it really anything > like > > an > > > even half-baked "success", at least of sorts??? > > > > > > A "friend" (long time, extremely irritating acquantance) claims ZFS is > a > > > complete failure, and will just disappear...... > > > > > > I realised I had no idea at all! > > > > > > Anyone able to shed some light on this?? > > > > > > ZFS should be the rage of the town, I think, but maybe I'm just being > > > fundamentalistic.... > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > openindiana-discuss mailing list > > > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > > > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > openindiana-discuss mailing list > > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > openindiana-discuss mailing list > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > _______________________________________________ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss