Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:37:55 -0700 From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: Alejandro Imass <aimass@yabarana.com>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS Recommendations for a new server Message-ID: <86egz5h8do.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405301035450.7952@wonkity.com> (Warren Block's message of "Fri, 30 May 2014 10:39:35 -0600 (MDT)") References: <CAHieY7Ros7sXaOpWdR7E0fZvT_m%2Bz%2Bj79CaE8szxvBEyJeHhFg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405301035450.7952@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "Warren" == Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> writes: Warren> Second, because it allows ZFS to deal directly with the disks. Warren> If the disks are hidden under a hardware RAID system, it can Warren> keep ZFS from seeing problems when they first begin. Somewhat apocryphal, since I can't seem to google the reference, but I've heard that ZFS actually detected checksum problems in supposedly production-hardware RAID boxes. In another story, I've heard that using super cheap but fast disks with a good ZFS controller is more cost effective (and faster) than the equivalent hardware RAID solutions. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>; Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. Still trying to think of something clever for the fourth line of this .sig
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86egz5h8do.fsf>