On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Toby Thain <t...@telegraphics.com.au>wrote:
> > On 12-Dec-08, at 3:38 PM, Johan Hartzenberg wrote: > > ... > The only bit that I understand about why HW raid "might" be bad is that if > it had access to the disks behind a HW RAID LUN, then _IF_ zfs were to > encounter corrupted data in a read, it will probably be able to re-construct > that data. This is at the cost of doing the parity calculations on a > general purpose CPU, > > > Except that it's *not just parity* - ZFS checksums where RAID-N does not > (although I've heard that some RAID systems checksum "somewhere" - not > end-to-end of course). > > Call me a fanboy if you will, but ZFS is different from hw RAID. I am not > an "automatic denier" of ZFS bugs or flaws, but I do acknowledge it's more > *revolution* than evolution. It's software. We only need be patient while > it matures. :) > > --Toby > > I'm going to pitch in here as devil's advocate and say this is hardly revolution. 99% of what zfs is attempting to do is something NetApp and WAFL have been doing for 15 years+. Regardless of the merits of their patents and prior art, etc., this is not something revolutionarily new. It may be "revolution" in the sense that it's the first time it's come to open source software and been given away, but it's hardly "revolutionary" in file systems as a whole. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
