Linked by Pobrecito Hablador on Mon 2nd Nov 2009 21:19 UTC
One of the advantages of ZFS is that it doesn't need a fsck. Replication, self-healing and scrubbing are a much better alternative. After a few years of ZFS life, can we say it was the correct decision? The reports in the mailing list are a good indicator of what happens in the real world, and it appears that once again, reality beats theory. The author of the article analyzes the implications of not having a fsck tool and tries to explain why he thinks Sun will add one at some point.
Thread beginning with comment 392779
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-07-27
Here is hardware compatibility list with OpenSolaris:
http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/data/os/
For ZFS to play well with your hardware, I dont know of such a list. To be truly sure, which hardware plays by the rules and dont breaks any standards, you have to buy Enterprise stuff.
Or, you could try to see which components SUNs storage servers use, and buy them components.
Member since:2008-10-23
Member since:2008-10-23
Well, how do I to know what hardware meets ZFS's requirements. Does something like a ZFS HDD 'compatibility' list exist?
You totally misunderstood. Mentioned "crappy" disks are bad. Malfunctioning. Broken. If you have such a disk, you should get it back to the shop and reclaim your money. ZFS doesn't have any special requirements for disks.
Member since:
2009-07-27
[quote]if you want reliability, you need hardware which is not that crappy.[/quote]
Well, how do I to know what hardware meets ZFS's requirements. Does something like a ZFS HDD 'compatibility' list exist?