Loss of bits, but depending upon the usage of the system, corruption _could_
be a possibility. I could envision an scenario where you were mapping an
iSCSI lun to a system, and that system had it's own FS on top of it (think
VMFS or NTFS) and when it came back online, parts of the last write comma
Corruption? Or just loss?
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Matt Breitbach
wrote:
> I would say that it's a "highly recommended". If you have a pool that
> needs
> to be imported and it has a faulted, unmirrored log device, you risk data
> corruption.
>
> -Matt Breitbach
>
> -Original Messag
I would say that it's a "highly recommended". If you have a pool that needs
to be imported and it has a faulted, unmirrored log device, you risk data
corruption.
-Matt Breitbach
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On B
Dear all
We use a STEC ZeusRAM as a log device for a 200TB RAID-Z2 pool.
As they are supposed to be read only after a crash or when booting and
those nice things are pretty expensive I'm wondering if mirroring
the log devices is a "must / highly recommended"
Thomas
Does zdb leak checking mechanism also check for the opposite situation?
That is, used/referenced blocks being in free regions of space maps.
Thank you.
--
Andriy Gapon
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/
What kind of drives are we talking about? Even SATA drives are
available according to application type (desktop, enterprise server,
home PVR, surveillance PVR, etc). Then there are drives with SAS &
fiber channel interfaces. Then you've got Winchester platters vs SSD
vs hybrids. But even before con
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Kroenert
>
> That reminds me of something I have been wondering about... Why only 12x
> faster? If we are effectively reading from memory - as compared to a
> disk reading at approximate
2011-12-11 15:10, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
Hey all,
That reminds me of something I have been wondering about... Why only 12x
faster? If we are effectively reading from memory - as compared to a
disk reading at approximately 100MB/s (which is about an average PC HDD
reading sequentially), I'd have
On 12/11/11 01:05 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 10:48:43PM +0200, Mertol Ozyoney wrote:
Unfortunetly the answer is no. Neither l1 nor l2 cache is dedup aware.
The only vendor i know that can do this is Netapp
And you really work at Oracle?:)
The answer is definiately
