On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:18:01PM -0200, JoaoBR wrote: > > On Monday 20 October 2008 15:03:14 Chuck Swiger wrote: > > > On Oct 20, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > > > Hm... I thought we determined earlier in this thread that the OP is > > > > not > > > > getting the benefits of ZFS checksums because he's not using raidz > > > > (only > > > > a single disk with a single pool)? > > > > > > He's not getting working filesystem redundancy with the existing > > > config and is vulnerable to losing data from a single drive failure, > > > agreed. But the ZFS checksum mechanism should still be working to > > > detect data corruption, even though ZFS cannot recover the corrupted > > > data the way it otherwise would if redundancy was available. > > > > > > > all right and understood but shouldn't something as fsck should correct > the > > error? > > No. You're using ZFS, not UFS. fsck will not work. > > In the case of underlying data corruption on ZFS, there is no way to fix > it unless you have mirroring or raidz in use. > Assuming the whole disk isn't bad and without knowing where (how far away) ZFS puts things when you do this, setting "copies=2" or "copies=3" on a non-redundant disk/pool/filesystem will allow ZFS to recover data if one of the copies is still good. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
