Warren Young wrote on 7/1/2019 9:48 AM: > On Jul 1, 2019, at 7:56 AM, Blake Hudson <blake at ispn.net> wrote: >> I've never used ZFS, as its Linux support has been historically poor. > When was the last time you checked? > > The ZFS-on-Linux (ZoL) code has been stable for years. In recent months, the BSDs have rebased their offerings from Illumos to ZoL. The macOS port, called O3X, is also mostly based on ZoL. > > That leaves Solaris as the only major OS with a ZFS implementation not based on ZoL. > >> 1) A single drive failure in a RAID4 or 5 array (desktop IDE) > Can I take by “IDE” that you mean “before SATA”, so you’re giving a data point something like twenty years old? > >> 2) A single drive failure in a RAID1 array (Supermicro SCSI) > Another dated tech reference, if by “SCSI” you mean parallel SCSI, not SAS. > > I don’t mind old tech per se, but at some point the clock on bugs must reset. Yes, this experience spans decades and a variety of hardware. I'm all for giving things another try, and would love to try ZFS again now that it's been ported to Linux. As far as mdadm goes, I'm happy with LSI hardware RAID controllers and have no desire to retry mdadm at this time. I have enough enterprise class drives fail on a regular basis (I manage a reasonable volume) that the predictability gained by standardizing on one vendor for HW RAID cards is worth a lot. I have no problem recommending LSI cards to folks that feel the improved availability outweighs the cost (~$500). This would assume those folks have already covered other aspects of availability and redundancy first (power, PSUs, cooling, backups, etc).