On 31-Jul-09, at 7:15 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
wow, talk about a knee jerk reaction...
On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Dave Stubbs wrote:
I don't mean to be offensive Russel, but if you do
ever return to ZFS, please promise me that you will
never, ever, EVER run it virtualized on top of NTFS
(a.k.a. worst file system ever) in a production
environment. Microsoft Windows is a horribly
unreliable operating system in situations where
things like protecting against data corruption are
important. Microsoft knows this
Oh WOW! Whether or not our friend Russel virtualized on top of
NTFS (he didn't - he used raw disk access) this point is amazing!
This point doesn't matter. VB sits between the guest OS and the raw
disk and
drops cache flush requests.
System5 - based on this thread I'd say you can't really make this
claim at all. Solaris suffered a crash and the ZFS filesystem
lost EVERYTHING! And there aren't even any recovery tools?
As has been described many times over the past few years, there is
a manual
procedure.
HANG YOUR HEADS!!!
Recovery from the same situation is EASY on NTFS. There are piles
of tools out there that will recover the file system, and failing
that, locate and extract data. The key parts of the file system
are stored in multiple locations on the disk just in case. It's
been this way for over 10 years.
ZFS also has redundant metadata written at different places on the
disk.
ZFS, like NTFS, issues cache flush requests with the expectation that
the disk honors that request.
Can anyone name a widely used transactional or journaled filesystem
or RDBMS that *doesn't* need working barriers?
I'd say it seems from this thread that my data is a lot safer on
NTFS than it is on ZFS!
Nope. NTFS doesn't know when data is corrupted. Until it does, it is
blissfully ignorant.
People still choose systems that don't even know which side of a
mirror is good. Do they ever wonder what happens when you turn off a
busy RAID-1? Or why checksumming and COW make a difference?
This thread hasn't shaken my preference for ZFS at all; just about
everything else out there relies on nothing more than dumb luck to
maintain integrity.
--Toby
I can't believe my eyes as I read all these responses blaming
system engineering and hiding behind ECC memory excuses and "well,
you know, ZFS is intended for more Professional systems and not
consumer devices, etc etc." My goodness! You DO realize that Sun
has this website called opensolaris.org which actually proposes to
have people use ZFS on commodity hardware, don't you? I don't see
a huge warning on that site saying "ATTENTION: YOU PROBABLY WILL
LOSE ALL YOUR DATA".
You probably won't lose all of your data. Statistically speaking,
there
are very few people who have seen this. There are many more cases
where ZFS detected and repaired corruption.
...
-- richard
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
