When configuring file servers for enterprise environments with multi-TB storage needs, the choice between ZFS and LVM fundamentally impacts data integrity, performance, and management overhead. Here's what I've learned from implementing both solutions on RHEL/CentOS systems.

ZFS brings several compelling features to storage management:

# Creating a ZFS pool with redundancy
zpool create tank mirror /dev/sda /dev/sdb
zfs create -o compression=lz4 -o atime=off tank/departments

Key benefits include:

• End-to-end checksumming prevents silent data corruption
• Native compression (lz4) improves throughput on modern CPUs
• Instant snapshots with zfs snapshot tank/departments@backup

Traditional LVM still offers advantages in certain scenarios:

# LVM setup example
pvcreate /dev/sd[c-g]
vgcreate vg_storage /dev/sd[c-g]
lvcreate -L 10T -n lv_departments vg_storage
mkfs.xfs /dev/vg_storage/lv_departments

Where LVM shines:

• Mature tooling with predictable behavior
• Lower memory overhead than ZFS
• Native integration with RHEL/CentOS utilities

In my benchmarks with 12x4TB SAS arrays:

For mixed NFS/CIFS workloads:

1. Use ZFS when data integrity is critical
2. Consider LVM when dealing with kernel compatibility issues
3. For SAN LUNs, ZFS often provides better visibility into actual disk health

Example hybrid approach for legacy systems:

# LVM thin provisioning with ZVOL backend
zfs create -V 20T tank/lvol0
pvcreate /dev/zd0
vgcreate vg_legacy /dev/zd0

Common issues I've encountered:

• ZFS ARC memory consumption can be tuned with zfs_arc_max
• LVM thin provisioning requires monitoring lvmonitor thresholds
• Both benefit from proper ashift settings when dealing with modern disks

When building enterprise storage solutions on RHEL/CentOS 6 x64 platforms, the choice between ZFS and LVM involves fundamental architectural differences:

# LVM typical setup example:
pvcreate /dev/sd[b-m]
vgcreate storage_vg /dev/sd[b-m]
lvcreate -L 10T -n department_data storage_vg
mkfs.ext4 /dev/storage_vg/department_data

For multi-TB deployments accessing data via both CIFS and NFS, ZFS offers several advantages:

• End-to-end checksumming prevents silent data corruption
• Copy-on-write architecture protects against power failures
• Built-in compression reduces physical storage requirements

# ZFS pool creation example (using zfs-fuse on RHEL):
zpool create -f tank raidz2 /dev/sd[b,e,h,k] spare /dev/sdm
zfs create -o compression=lz4 -o sharesmb=on tank/department_data

LVM shows strengths in certain scenarios:

For mission-critical environments:

1. Use ZFS when data integrity is paramount
2. Consider LVM when working with certified storage arrays
3. Always test with your specific workload patterns

# Hybrid approach example (not recommended):
pvcreate /dev/sd[b-m]
vgcreate zfs_vg /dev/sd[b-m]
lvcreate -L 20T -n zfs_pool zfs_vg
zpool create -f tank /dev/zfs_vg/zfs_pool

Common issues we've encountered:

• ZFS memory pressure causing OOM kills (adjust zfs_arc_max)
• LVM thin provisioning fragmentation over time
• Both solutions require careful monitoring at scale