Re: alternative file systems
Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
One of the disadvantages with mdadm is that it can severely impact
performance. That doesn't mean that raid-5 with btrfs wouldn't have
this disadvantage, too.
>> > 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?
And not having the checksumming has never caused a problem for me, as
far as I can tell ... Still that doesn't mean that it hasn't.
>> >> 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.
But when it eats files and is 10 years behind, why are people buying it?
So how can we safely store large amounts of data?
--
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
Reply to: