Hello can, Monday, November 5, 2007, 4:42:14 AM, you wrote:
cyg> Having gotten a bit tired of the level of ZFS hype floating cyg> around these days (especially that which Jonathan has chosen to cyg> associate with his spin surrounding the fracas with NetApp), I cyg> chose to respond to that article yesterday. I did attempt to be cyg> fair and would appreciate feedback if anything I said was not cyg> (since I would not wish to repeat it elsewhere and would be happy to correct it there). Bill - I have a very strong impression that for whatever reason you're trying really hard to fight ZFS. Are you NetApp employee? :) Journaling vs ZFS - well, I've been managing some rather large environment and having fsck (even with journaling) from time to time which takes 24-50 hours for a file system........ after migrated to ZFS no more such issues (there was a bug in ZFS which caused long time booting after hard reboot in some cases but it's been fixed for some time now). The same happens on ext2/3 - from time to time you've got to run fsck. ZFS end-to-end checksumming - well, you definitely underestimate it. While I have yet to see any checksum error reported by ZFS on Symmetrix arrays or FC/SAS arrays with some other "cheap" HW I've seen many of them (which explained need for fsck from time to time). Then check this list for other reports on checksum errors from people running on home x86 equipment. Then you're complaining that ZFS isn't novel... well comparing to other products easy of management and rich of features, all in one, is a good enough reason for some environments. While WAFL offers checksumming its done differently which does offer less protection than what ZFS does. Then you've got built-in compression which is not only about reducing disk usage but also improving performance (real case here in a production). Then integration with NFS,iSCSI,CIFS (soon), getting rid of /etc/vfstab, snapshots/clones and sending incremental snapshots. Ability to send incremental snapshots - that actually changes a game in some environments. If you got a lot of cheap storage with a lot of small files and you want to keep it cheap the problem is you basically have no means to back it up.... with zfs send suddenly you can. Which means you are able to keep it cheap and have your backups (to remote storage). Then... ok, enough :) -- Best regards, Robert Milkowski mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
