Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:58:40 +0200 From: Matthias Gamsjager <mgamsjager@gmail.com> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: Kaya Saman <kayasaman@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, Hooman Fazaeli <hoomanfazaeli@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Is ZFS production ready? Message-ID: <CA%2BD9QhvR_eKtVxdKcaMyOS7tLw_AOHKgUy3o7mJn2b=chMA0Xw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211539230.2903@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <4FE2CE38.9000100@gmail.com> <CAPj0R5Kmi-%2BdJ7mPvTrTAoS8O983svOyR2WyK2_v1Cr07dSS_A@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211413140.2263@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CA%2BD9QhuQ%2BbxKW9%2BdX%2BzS9mErwz8JSkV2G7qL0KfB8BH_LGJAgA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211539230.2903@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Wojciech Puchar < wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > I really want to see your face when you fsck 48TB w/o ffs+j (since that is >> so young must be immature :S ) of data with the phone ring non stop with >> > > Even if ZFS would be the only filesystem in existence i would make one per > 2 disks (single mirror). > > No matter what's going on, what do you prefer in case say - double disk > failure from one mirror on 48 disk systems? > > losing completely data of 1/24 of users (and then restoring that amount > from backups), or losing randomly chosen 1/24 of files from whole system? > > answer yourself. > Sorry but I don;t follow you right there. with 48 disks you would not mirror 24vs24. I will perform very well but there is too much risk in that. you would rather go with a raidz2 stripe sets. > > With UFS of course i would have single disk fsck time - less than a hour. > which CAN be done out of work hours with soft updates. > > i normally turn off automatic fsck for large data filesystems, and if > crash happened i run it after/before work hours. > > > raid is not a backup. You can loose data with any configuration or fs. so like in the compiler discussion. There is no perfect something in this world. It's always a tradeoff. with ZFS you have access to most advanced techniques and I believe that data is most safe with raidz3 as it can be. UFS cant match that and you have to rely on a raidcontroller which can screw up your data as well.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BD9QhvR_eKtVxdKcaMyOS7tLw_AOHKgUy3o7mJn2b=chMA0Xw>