On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:26 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: > (I'm sharpening my axe for the "Use ZFS, it's bulletproof" discussion.) > /me puts on asbestos suit...stares...switches to asbestos armor instead. > > > HAHA, what's your take on ZFS then? > > We've been running ZFS on a few storage servers, both in the office and > for our hosting clients for about 2 years now and all I can say it that > it's rock solid. +1 Although I have seen screams from others on the opensolaris/openindiana lists I personally have not experienced them. > > With raidz2 (similar to RAID6) we've never had any data loss or > corruption due to hard drive failure and long rebuilds. > And if you use SSD for ZIL & LARC2 cache, it's super fast. the same > systems with EXT3 simply couldn't match the performance we got got from > ZFS. > I take it you limit your raidz2 arrays to a maximum of 9 drives? /me wonders what an md raid array with an ext3 fs that has its journal on an ssd in full data journal mode give in terms of performance. I would not give zfs the performance crown just yet. Have you tried using ext3 with an external journal on the ssd and ext3 on raid6? What kind of usage pattern do you have on those zfs filesystems? > > > BUT, since we're not allowed to talk about anything else other than > CentOS on this list people don't mention it. > I find that this list is generally tolerant of offtopic but technical topics. What it does not like is flamewars made of posts that have zero technical merit.