[OpenAFS] Overview? Linux filesystem choices

Vincent Fox vbfox@ucdavis.edu
Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:53:57 -0700

  On 9/30/2010 6:40 AM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> Getting back the data your wrote is a hard
> problem.  ZFS presumes that everything
> downstream of it will (eventually) fail.  There
> is overhead there, but it does solve a set
> of problems that other solutions do not.
> (And the highly paranoid presume ZFS will
> fail, so take different precautions).
I've seen 3 RAID-5 sets have double-disk failures in the last 5 years.

I've seen one even have a triple-disk failure in a short timespan.
Too short for all that rebuild from hot spares business to work.

Granted, older disks on older system.

Everyone will say "yeah, but it's very unlikely and hasn't happened to ME".

I like ZFS RAID-10, I like it a LOT.  I don't think people understand how
good it really is, most are afraid of anything other than the OS
they run now and antique filesystems that have accreted decades
of "fixes" for design defects.  Do you trust black box RAID controllers?
I don't.  I really like being able to run scrub whenever I need to ensure
the data on the disk is correct.

It makes me sad that Oracle bought Sun, where it will probably wither.
If IBM had bought Sun I would have more hope of a good filesystem
for MacOS, Linux, etc.  in the near term.  ZFS has been stable and
in production for years now.  I like btrfs but it is years from
being ready for terabytes of production data.