Re: alternative file systems
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:33:15AM +0200, lee wrote:
> > A correct guess. A recommended minimum is kernel 3.14 - [2].
>
> So this is a rather new feature. How reliable and how well does it
> work?
I wouldn't trust my data to that feature :) It has 'experimental' and
'biohazard' labels strapped everywhere.
I prefer trusty mdadm for any RAID.
> > But, ZFS won't allow you to make a conventional RAID5 either :)
>
> I know --- and I don't require RAID-5. What I require is what RAID-5
> provides, i. e. redundancy without wasting as many disks as other RAID
> levels. I also like the better performance of hardware RAID compared to
> software RAID. IIRC, ZFS would provide efficient redundancy and be
> safer than a RAID controller because of it's checksumming. I'd have to
> try it out to see what kind of performance degradation or gain it would
> bring about.
A real story. A recent one, a couple of weeks fresh.
One shop buys *very* expensive Sun SuperCluster T4 with Solaris 11 and,
of course, ZFS. Configures a couple of LDOMs on it. So far, so good.
And then - it happens. A simple oversight - they filled up to 100% one
of LDOMs' root zpool.
They say that is should not happen, yet I've seen it with my own eyes -
ZFS happily ate (i.e. they disappeared without a trace) a couple of
shared libraries, rendering some basic OS utilities unusable.
So, what good was those magical ZFS checksums did?
> >> They need to get these license issues fixed ...
> >
> > Back in the old days CDDL was chosen by Sun especially so that
> > this license issue would *never* be fixed.
> > Currently Oracle could re-license ZFS to anything they want, including
> > GPL-compatible license, but why would *they* do it?
>
> Why don't they?
Simple - they sell servers based on Solaris as storage appliances (and
they nearly 10 years behind ZFS on Linux as far as ZFS is concerned). Who
will buy these servers if the same can be achieved with cheap Linux
server? Oracle is greedy.
REco
Reply to: