3 ms·
yeah I was thinking you can stack these things and almost get 99.99999% (with around 3-4 of them) of course that makes the cost more, but not 4x.
by redorb 18y ago
yeah I was thinking you can stack these things and almost get 99.99999% (with around 3-4 of them) of course that makes the cost more, but not 4x.
- newt0311 18y agoStacking would be the wrong way to go about it. With ZFS, you could still get 99.99999...% but with only a slight percentage increase in necessary storage space.
- evgen 18y agoYou will also pay for increased i/o transaction costs. TANSTAAFL.
- rcoder 18y agoI don't think you read closely enough: they define the failure rate as describing the likelihood of complete loss of the volume, not minor data corruption. Unless you're mirroring your data across multiple drives, there is no way ZFS can magically recreate a volume that simply ceases to exist. Think of it this way: how would ZFS help you in your own server room if a non-mirrored disk caught fire and melted? Answer: it wouldn't. You'd go to backups, like you would with any other filesystem.
- jrockway 18y agoAnswer: it wouldn't. You'd go to backups, like you would with any other filesystem. Nuh-uh! ZFS is magical and not bounded by the "laws of reality". After all, Apple said they liked it!