On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Anton B. Rang wrote:
>> It sounds like you have access to a source of information that the
>> rest of us don't have access to.
>
> I think if you read the archives of this mailing list, and compare
> it to the discussions on the other Solaris mailing lists re UFS,
> it's a reasonable conclusion.
I don't think drawing conclusions based on observing the zfs nerve
center is a scientific approach for these reasons:
* UFS is expected to fail.
* ZFS is expected to never fail.
* UFS has a small maximum volume size.
* ZFS allows building massive storage pools into the hundreds of
terrabytes and beyond.
* UFS has only rudimentary error checking.
* ZFS has exotic error checking.
So basically UFS volumes are small (most are 100GB or less) and when
they fail (and someone actually notices) it is not worth mentioning
since they were expected to eventually fail and they can easily be
restored from backup.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
