On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Ahmed Kamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >In the past year I've lost more ZFS file systems than I have any other > >type of file system in the past 5 years. With other file systems I > >can almost always get some data back. With ZFS I can't get any back. > >> Thats scary to hear! >> > > I am really scared now! I was the one trying to quantify ZFS reliability, > and that is surely bad to hear!
The circumstances where I have lost data have been when ZFS has not handled a layer of redundancy. However, I am not terribly optimistic of the prospects of ZFS on any device that hasn't committed writes that ZFS thinks are committed. Mirrors and raidz would also be vulnerable to such failures. I also have run into other failures that have gone unanswered on the lists. It makes me wary about using zfs without a support contract that allows me to escalate to engineering. Patching only support won't help. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-December/044984.html Hang only after I mirrored the zpool, no response on the list http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-June/048255.html I think this is fixed around snv_98, but the zfs-discuss list was surprisingly silent on acknowledging it as a problem - I had no idea that it was being worked until I saw the commit. The panic seemed to be caused by dtrace - core developers of dtrace were quite interested in the kernel crash dump. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-September/051109.html Panic during ON build. Pool was lost, no response from list. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
