[OpenIndiana-discuss] A ZFS related question: How successful is ZFS, really???

[Jonathan Adams]

most NAS systems that I've come across recently fall into 2 systems:

1) ZFS
2) Hardware RAID

there don't appear to be any other alternatives out there, and for my money
I wouldn't ever go back to hardware RAID, if the controller fails you can
lose everything!

We're not a Sun company, although we have quite a bit of Sun/Fujitsu kit
... but our latest big boxes are all home-built Free-NAS systems, because
they run ZFS.

Jon

On 12 January 2015 at 13:24, Hans J Albertsson <hans.j.albertsson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks for your views, the serial storage (tape mostly?) problem is news to
> me but otherwise I concur.
>
> I was mostly asking about success and market presence, i e is ZFS being
> widely used in any non-Sun/Oracle part of the workplace?
>
> Hans J. Albertsson
> From my Nexus 5
> Den 12 jan 2015 12:38 skrev "Jonathan Adams" <t12nslookup at gmail.com>:
>
> > ZFS is the most advanced filesystem on the planet IMHO, we have been
> using
> > it for 10+ years in production.
> >
> > There are reasons not to use it, but they are usually limitations not
> > related to ZFS itself.
> >
> > We used to use tape backup for our old UFS systems, and it came as a
> shock
> > when we couldn't use tapes with ZFS easily ... but we just bit the bullet
> > and realised that tapes were a dead technology, and just went for ZFS
> > snapshots and keeping offline'd disks in the fireproof safe.
> >
> > There is some fragmentation, Solaris 11 has an incompatible version of
> ZFS,
> > at least for now.
> >
> > ZFS on Linux doesn't come compiled into the kernel by default, which
> means
> > that you can't have a ZFS root and update the kernel at the same time,
> > without being _very_ _careful_!
> >
> > ZFS on USB in Solaris is a little flaky, but that's not down to the ZFS,
> > it's down to the USB support, and when the ZFS root system fails the
> whole
> > system is unrecoverable.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Seriously though, ZFS does more than any other file system, it is more
> > robust and it's easier to manage ... all other filesystems are useless in
> > comparison.
> >
> > BTRFS, don't go there, it's a poor man's ZFS, the Microsoft "equivalent"
> > likewise shouldn't even be in the same sentence.
> >
> > Just my 2cents.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > On 12 January 2015 at 11:13, Hans J. Albertsson <
> > hans.j.albertsson at gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I know FreeNAS has turned to ZFS only, OSv is ZFS only, and NAS
> > Appliances
> > > running ZFS turn up in unexpected places, but is it really anything
> like
> > an
> > > even half-baked "success", at least of sorts???
> > >
> > > A "friend" (long time, extremely irritating acquantance) claims ZFS is
> a
> > > complete failure, and will just disappear......
> > >
> > > I realised I had no idea at all!
> > >
> > > Anyone able to shed some light on this??
> > >
> > > ZFS should be the rage of the town, I think, but maybe I'm just being
> > > fundamentalistic....
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > openindiana-discuss mailing list
> > > openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> > > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > openindiana-discuss mailing list
> > openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> openindiana-discuss mailing list
> openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>