SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

April 2017

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:
Reply To:
Date:
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:41:40 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
On 2017-04-11 09:44, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:13:25AM +0200, David Sommerseth wrote:
>>
>> But that aside, according to [1], ZFS on Linux was considered stable in
>> 2013.  That is still fairly fresh, and my concerns regarding the time it
>> takes to truly stabilize file systems for production [2] still stands.
>>
>
> Why do you worry about filesystem stability?
>
So I suppose the extended downtime while several terabytes of data are restored 
after it's loss due to filesystem malfunction is of no consequence to you. 
Others find extended downtime both extremely frustrating and expensive. And that 
does ignore the last few {interval between backups} worth of data loss, which 
can also be expensive.

{o.o}   Joanne

ATOM RSS1 RSS2