On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 08:54:50PM -0500, Tim wrote: > > As it does in ANY fileserver scenario, INCLUDING zfs. He is building a > > FILESERVER. This is not an APPLICATION server. You seem to be stuck on > > this idea that everyone is using ZFS on the server they're running the > > application. That does a GREAT job of creating disparate storage > islands, > > something EVERY enterprise is trying to get rid of. Not create more of. > > First off there's an issue of design. Wherever possible end-to-end > protection is better (and easier to implement and deploy) than > hop-by-hop protection. > > Hop-by-hop protection implies a lot of trust. Yes, in a NAS you're > going to have at least one hop: from the client to the server. But how > does the necessity of one hop mean that N hops is fine? One hop is > manageable. N hops is a disaster waiting to happen. Who's talking about N hops? WAFL gives you the exact same amount of hops as ZFS. > > > Second, NAS is not the only way to access remote storage. There's also > SAN (e.g., iSCSI). So you might host a DB on a ZFS pool backed by iSCSI > targets. If you do that with a random iSCSI target implementation then > you get end-to-end integrity protection regardless of what else the > vendor does for you in terms of hop-by-hop integrity protection. And > you can even host the target on a ZFS pool, in which case there's two > layers of integrity protection, and so some waste of disk space, but you > get the benefit of very flexible volume management on both, the > initiator and the target. > I don't recall saying it was. The original poster is talking about a FILESERVER, not iSCSI targets. As off topic as it is, the current iSCSI target is hardly fully baked or production ready. > > Third, who's to say that end-to-end integrity protection can't possibly > be had in a NAS environment? Sure, with today's protocols you can't > have it -- you can get hop-by-hop protection with at least one hop (see > above) -- but having end-to-end integrity protection built-in to the > filesystem may enable new NAS protocols that do provide end-to-end > protection. (This is a variant of the first point above: good design > decisions pay off.) > > Which would apply to WAFL as well as ZFS.
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
