> I do understand your setup but I dont have too agree that it is a good
so i would repeat my question.
Assume you have 48 disks, in mirrored configuration (24 mirrors) and 480
users with their data on them.
Your solution with ZFS - ZFS crashes or you get double disk failure.
Assuming the latter by average one per 24 file (randomly chosen) is
destroyed which - in practice and limited time, means everything
destroyed. Actually more than one per 24 - large files can be spread over.
Your solution with UFS - better as there is fsck which slowly but
successfully repairs problem. with double disk failure - the same!
You restore everything from backup (i assume you have one). This takes
like a day or more, one or two complete work days lost+all users in
practice lost everything since last backup.
My solution with UFS - fsck in case of failure work in parallel on 24
disks so not that long. double disk failure means losing data of 1/24
every one per 24 user cannot work, others work and i without any stress do
recover this 1/24 of users data from backup after putting replacement
1/24 of users lost data since last backup, and some hours of time.
Even assuming ZFS is perfect then we both have problems as often, but my
problems are 1/24 as severe as yours.
Just don't ask me for help when unhappy users will want to cut off your
>> And you've never seen me, yet i still exist.
> Really? that's you anwser to my question. The most childish answer I could