Is ZFS production ready?

[Matthias Gamsjager]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar <
wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:

>
>> answer yourself.
>>
>>
>> Sorry but I don;t follow you right there. with 48 disks you would not
>> mirror 24vs24.
>>
>
> if i wasn't clear enough then i would it like that (with UFS), and
> assuming disks are named disk0....disk48, and that i have at least one more
> disk for system code, often acessed data etc (SSD would be fine), while
> these 48 disks store user/whatever data.
>
> gmirror label ...options... mirror1 /dev/disk0 /dev/disk1
> gmirror label ...options... mirror2 /dev/disk2 /dev/disk3
> .
> .
> .
> gmirror label ...options... mirror24 /dev/disk46 /dev/disk47
>
> then newfs etc.. and mounted as 24 filesystems. eg. /home1.../home24
>
> then decide how to spread things properly. this depend of your needs.
>
>
interesting idea but the options ZFS would give you are superior to this
setup. But I have still not seen any evidence/facts that ZFS looses more
data than UFS.
Excluding user error which is 90% the reason data is lost.