On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:30:30PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:46:40PM -0600, Gary Mills wrote: > > On the server, a variety of filesystems can be created on this virtual > > disk. UFS is most common, but ZFS has a number of advantages over > > UFS. Two of these are dynamic space management and snapshots. There > > are also a number of objections to employing ZFS in this manner. > > ``ZFS cannot correct errors'', and ``you will lose all of your data'' > > are two of the alarming ones. Isn't ZFS supposed to ensure that data > > written to the disk are always correct? What's the real problem here? > > ZFS has very strong error detection built-in, and for mirrored and > RAID-Zed pools can recover from errors automatically as long as there's > a mirror left or enough disks in RAID-Z left to complete the recovery.
Oh, but I get it: all the redundancy here would be in the SAN, and the ZFS pools would have no mirrors, no RAID-Z. As I said: > Note that you'll generally be better off using RAID-Z than HW RAID-5. Precisely because ZFS can reconstruct the correct data if it's responsible for redundancy. But note that the setup you describe puts ZFS in no worse a situation than any other filesystem. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
