From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 9 14:56:49 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49CC116A421 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:56:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alex.kovalenko@verizon.net) Received: from vms040pub.verizon.net (vms040pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235A313C467 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 14:56:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alex.kovalenko@verizon.net) Received: from [10.0.3.231] ([70.21.165.95]) by vms040.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JUD008YXTL19TF1@vms040.mailsrvcs.net> for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:58:14 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:55:29 -0500 From: "Alexandre \"Sunny\" Kovalenko" In-reply-to: <18308.51970.859622.363321@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> To: Andrew Gallatin Message-id: <1199890529.756.10.camel@RabbitsDen> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org> <47810DE3.3050106@FreeBSD.org> <478119AB.8050906@FreeBSD.org> <47814160.4050401@samsco.org> <4781541D.6070500@conducive.net> <47815D29.2000509@conducive.net> <1199664196.899.10.camel@RabbitsDen> <47818E97.8030601@conducive.net> <18308.51970.859622.363321@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=E9=9F=93=E5=AE=B6=E6=A8=99?= Bill Hacker , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS honesty X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:56:49 -0000 On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 08:23 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?6Z+T5a625qiZIEJpbGwgSGFja2Vy?= writes: > > > OTOH that's all GPFS is. > > > > Far more features than that - 'robust', 'fault tolerant', 'Disaster Recovery' > > ... all the usual buzzwords. > > > > And nothing prevents using 'cluster' tools on a single box. Not storage-wise anyway. > > Having had the misfortune of being involved in a cluster which used > GPFS, I can attest that GPFS is anything but "robust" and "fault > tolerant" in my experience. Granted this was a few years ago, and > things may have improved, but that one horrible experience was > sufficient to make me avoid GPFS for life. Would you mind sharing your experience, maybe in the private E-mail. I am especially interested in the platform you have used (as in AIX or Linux) and underlying storage configuration (as in directly attached vs. separate file system servers). I am running few small AIX clusters in the lab using GPFS 3.1 over iSCSI and so far was fairly pleased with that. However, OP's point was that ZFS has inherent cluster abilities, of which I have found no information whatsoever. > > Drew > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Alexandre "Sunny" Kovalenko