From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 1 17:43:10 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B6A1065675 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:43:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mixmaster@remailer.paranoici.org) Received: from remailer.paranoici.org (remailer.paranoici.org [88.80.28.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FF48FC27 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:43:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by remailer.paranoici.org (Postfix, from userid 109) id F12412E87; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:24:29 +0000 (UTC) From: Anonymous Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2bc678ae2662c322990cd4b8053956a8@remailer.paranoici.org> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:24:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Anyone using freebsd ZFS for large storage servers? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:43:10 -0000 > Certainly with computers that never have hardware faults and assuming ZFS > doesn't have any software bugs you may be right. That was part of their assumption. It's based on server grade hardware and ECC RAM, and lots of redundancy. They missed the part about their code not being perfect. > But in real world you will be hardly punished some day ;) Yep, big time. Hardly as in hard, not as in barely.