Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Jan 2010 16:57 UTC, submitted by wanker90210
Hardware, Embedded Systems ACM's latest journal had an interesting article about RAID which suggested it might be time for triple parity raid. "How much longer will current RAID techniques persevere? The RAID levels were codified in the late 1980s; double-parity RAID, known as RAID-6, is the current standard for high-availability, space-efficient storage. The incredible growth of hard-drive capacities, however, could impose serious limitations on the reliability even of RAID-6 systems. Recent trends in hard drives show that triple-parity RAID must soon become pervasive."
Thread beginning with comment 404833
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: the nice thing about standards
by Erpo41 on Tue 19th Jan 2010 04:09 UTC in reply to "the nice thing about standards"
Erpo41
Member since:
2007-11-08

I worked on the Linux ZFS port using FUSE.

1. Some people feel that FUSE filesystems are second class citizens on Linux. I happen to agree, but you may not.

2. Quite apart from the fact that it's a FUSE filesystem, zfs-fuse has bugs. Some people wake up one morning and their pools don't import. Sometimes this can be fixed with specialized single-purpose tools from the author and sometimes they can't. For more zfs-fuse failures, check the mailing list.

3. If you think ZFS is neat, I strongly recommend throwing your support behind btrfs. It's not as good as ZFS, but you will eventually be able to trust your data to it on Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 1

rexstuff Member since:
2007-04-06

You worked on the original ZFS-FUSE implementation? Cool. Were you the original Google SoC developer?

There was some talk somewhere about ZFS coming to Linux natively, that someone was taking care of the patent and licencing issues. Do you know anything about that?

Reply Parent Score: 2

ba1l Member since:
2007-09-08

3. If you think ZFS is neat, I strongly recommend throwing your support behind btrfs. It's not as good as ZFS, but you will eventually be able to trust your data to it on Linux.


Is there any particular reason that btrfs isn't as good?

Last time I checked, it seemed to be a couple of missing features away from being equivalent to the first versions of ZFS.

Is it just a matter of being younger?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tuxie Member since:
2009-04-22

Is there any particular reason that btrfs isn't as good?

Last time I checked, it seemed to be a couple of missing features away from being equivalent to the first versions of ZFS.


I think you answered your own question there. ;)

But Btrfs is a great filesystem embryo and I'm looking forward to using it some time in the future, when it's more equivalent to the current versions of ZFS.

Reply Parent Score: 1

garyd Member since:
2008-10-22

Is there any particular reason that btrfs isn't as good?


According to its web site, "btrfs is under heavy development and is not suitable for any uses other than benchmarking and review. The btrfs disk format is not yet finalized but it will only be changed if a critical bug is found and no workarounds are possible."

In the mean time, if you need a robust production file system I would recommend choosing a mature file system that's more appropriate for your needs. For example, GFS or OCFS2 are enterprise ready clustered file systems. They are both GPL licensed but I wouldn't be so concerned about licensing unless you have overwhelmingly strong beliefs that require you to strictly adhere to superstitions instead of relying on more rational metrics like performance and stability.

Reply Parent Score: 1