michelle at sorbs.net
Tue Apr 30 08:09:13 UTC 2019
Sent from my iPad
> On 30 Apr 2019, at 17:10, Andrea Venturoli <ml at netfence.it> wrote:
>> On 4/30/19 2:41 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> The system was originally built on 9.0, and got upgraded through out the years... zfsd was not available back then. So get your point, but maybe you didn’t realize this blog was a history of 8+ years?
> That's one of the first things I thought about while reading the original post: what can be inferred from it is that ZFS might not have been that good in the past.
> It *could* still suffer from the same problems or it *could* have improved and be more resilient.
> Answering that would be interesting...
Without a doubt it has come a long way, but in my opinion, until there is a tool to walk the data (to transfer it out) or something that can either repair or invalidate metadata (such as a spacemap corruption) there is still a fatal flaw that makes it questionable to use... and that is for one reason alone (regardless of my current problems.)
If one triggers such a fault on a production server, how can one justify transferring from backup multiple terabytes (or even petabytes now) of data to repair an unmountable/faulted array.... because all backup solutions I know currently would take days if not weeks to restore the sort of store ZFS is touted with supporting.
Now, yes most production environments have multiple backing stores so will have a server or ten to switch to whilst the store is being recovered, but it still wouldn’t be a pleasant experience... not to mention the possibility that if one store is corrupted there is a chance that the other store(s) would also be affected in the same way if in the same DC... (Eg a DC fire - which I have seen) .. and if you have multi DC stores to protect from that.. size of the pipes between DCs comes clearly into play.
More information about the freebsd-stable