Hi everyone, We're a small Linux shop (20 users). I am currently using a Linux server to host our 2TBs of data. I am considering better options for our data storage needs. I mostly need instant snapshots and better data protection. I have been considering EMC NS20 filers and Zfs based solutions. For the Zfs solutions, I am considering NexentaStor product installed on a pogoLinux StorageDirector box. The box will be mostly sharing 2TB over NFS, nothing fancy.
Now, my question is I need to assess the zfs reliability today Q4-2008 in comparison to an EMC solution. Something like EMC is pretty mature and used at the most demanding sites. Zfs is fairly new, and from time to time I have heard it had some pretty bad bugs. However, the EMC solution is like 4X more expensive. I need to somehow "quantify" the relative quality level, in order to judge whether or not I should be paying all that much to EMC. The only really important reliability measure to me, is not having data loss! Is there any real measure like "percentage of total corruption of a pool" that can assess such a quality, so you'd tell me zfs has pool failure rate of 1 in a 10^6, while EMC has a rate of 1 in a 10^7. If not, would you guys rate such a zfs solution as ??% the reliability of an EMC solution ? I know it's a pretty difficult question to answer, but it's the one I need to answer and weigh against the cost. Thanks a million, I really appreciate your help
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
