Re: ZFS honesty

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 08:23 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> =?UTF-8?B?6Z+T5a625qiZIEJpbGwgSGFja2Vy?= writes:
>  > >  OTOH that's all GPFS is.
>  > 
>  > Far more features than that - 'robust', 'fault tolerant', 'Disaster Recovery' 
>  > ... all the usual buzzwords.
>  > 
>  > And nothing prevents using 'cluster' tools on a single box. Not storage-wise anyway.
> 
> Having had the misfortune of being involved in a cluster which used
> GPFS, I can attest that GPFS is anything but "robust" and "fault
> tolerant" in my experience.  Granted this was a few years ago, and
> things may have improved, but that one horrible experience was 
> sufficient to make me avoid GPFS for life.
Would you mind sharing your experience, maybe in the private E-mail. I
am especially interested in the platform you have used (as in AIX or
Linux) and underlying storage configuration (as in directly attached vs.
separate file system servers).

I am running few small AIX clusters in the lab using GPFS 3.1 over iSCSI
and so far was fairly pleased with that.

However, OP's point was that ZFS has inherent cluster abilities, of
which I have found no information whatsoever.

> 
> Drew
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"

-- 
Alexandre "Sunny" Kovalenko