Tim wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Toby Thain <t...@telegraphics.com.au > <mailto: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+.
The ideas aren't new, but the combination of the ideas is. NetApp is still a box at the end of a bit of wire that the OS has to blindly trust. -- Ian. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
