SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

July 2013

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Graham Allan <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Graham Allan <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:54:14 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
I'm not sure if anyone really knows what the reliability will be, but
the hope is obviously that these SLC-type drives should be
longer-lasting (and they are in a mirror).

Losing the ZIL used to be a fairly fatal event, but that was a long time
ago (ZFS v19 or something). I think with current ZFS versions you just
lose the performance boost if the dedicated ZIL device fails or goes away.
There's a good explanation here:
  http://www.nexentastor.org/boards/2/topics/6890

Graham

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:41:50AM -0700, Yasha Karant wrote:
> How reliable are the SSDs, including actual non-corrected BER, and
> what is the failure rate / interval ?
> 
> If a ZFS log on a SSD fails, what happens?  Is the log automagically
> recreated on a secondary SSD?  Are the drives (spinning and/or SSD)
> mirrored? Are primary (non-log) data lost?
> 
> Yasha Karant

ATOM RSS1 RSS2