Couple of points and counter points from my own experience. *) tape really isn't dead. No, really. at about $.01/GB/copy, and 1x10^20 bit error rate, you can't beat it. Use it for the right thing though. This excels as an offline archival media with media lifetimes expected at around 30 years. Contrast that to cheap disk. Everybody forgets that you still have to account for the chassis, memory, space, transportability, media bandwidth, brackets, cpus, and power used by an online storage system. Also, if you go with the really inexpensive disks to keep costs down, you sacrifice 5 orders of magnitude of media reliability when compared to tape. Seriously. There's a place for both. Places serious about data integrity and offsite archive at good cost still use tape. it's not dead. It's not even dying contrary to what some popular reading might say in some places. You can backup zfs to tape using zfs diff to get your list and then whatever mechanism you want to get those items to tape (rsync, tsm, whatever). The point is, that full-filesystem-scan for backups is definitely dead. Don't do that. There are better mechanisms. Full scan doesn't scale.
*) ZFS is really cool and all. We use it a lot! To say it is unquestionably the best might be a bit of an overstatement. GPFS is also really cool, and arguably better in many ways. The erasure coding in the new de-clustered RAID is better than ZFS in terms of rebuild time and certain rare causes of data loss. GPFS allows easy separation of metadata onto fast storage for index and search. The GPFS policy engine is way cool. You can arbitrarily relayout your GPFS across storage. You can have pools of different characteristics and do policy migration or data placement policies arbitrarily to use them. (We STILL can't do any relayout of any kind on ZFS. Argh). The big downside is price, of course. There are plenty of free ZFS solutions available but none for GPFS. BTRFS has a technological edge over zfs in relayout as well. Why isn't it possible to shrink/relayout ZFS still? IMHO this should have been delivered about 2 years ago. As far as stability and marketshare go, ZFS gets the big win, naturally. On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Hans J Albertsson < [email protected]> wrote: > Does anyone have anything beyond own impressions and war stories? > > Is anyone collecting statistics on storage solutions sold? > > Hans J. Albertsson > From my Nexus 5 > Den 12 jan 2015 15:24 skrev "Schweiss, Chip" <[email protected]>: > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Andrew Gabriel < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Since you mention Sun/Oracle, I don't see them pushing ZFS very much > > > anymore, although I am aware their engineers still work on it. > > > > > > > Oracle pushes ZFS hard and aggressively. I dare you to fill out their > > contact form or download their virtual appliance demo. Their sales > people > > will be calling within the hour. > > > > We just recently went through a bidding war on an HA + DR system with 1/2 > > PB useable storage with many vendors including Nexenta and Oracle. > Oracle > > was price competitive with Nexenta and is in my opinion a much more > > polished product. > > > > We still chose to build our own on OmniOS because we could still do that > > for about 1/2 the price of Oracle / Nexenta. That's less than 1/4 the > > price of 3par/HP, IBM, Dell/Compellent BTW, our OmniOS build is on the > > exact same hardware, Nexenta would have been. > > > > -Chip > > _______________________________________________ > > openindiana-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > openindiana-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > _______________________________________________ openindiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
