You're right - in my company (a very big one) we just stumbled across this as
well and we're strongly considering not using ZFS because of it.
It's easy to type zpool add when you meant zpool replace - and then you can go
rebuild your box because it was the root pool. Nice.
At the very least, "
> A data structure view of ZFS is now available:
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/structures/
>
> We've only got one picture up right now (though its a juicy one!),
> but let us know what you're interested in seeing, and
> we'll try to make that happen.
Well it's a nice picture, th
> > => What if ZFS had parity blocks?
> >
> > Try this scenario:
> >
> > Given data to store, that data is stored in regular
> ZFS blocks, and a parity block is calculated. The
> data and parity blocks are laid out across the
> available disks in the pool.
> >
> > When you need data from one of
Hi there,
Richard's blog post
(http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/zfs_raid_recommendations_space_performance)
got me thinking. I posted a comment but it got mangled, and I'm wondering if I
got it right, so I'm reposting here:
Just to make sure I have things right:
Given (by the ZFS layer) a b
Just a "me too" mail:
On 13 Sep 2006, at 08:30, Richard Elling wrote:
Is this use of slightly based upon disk failure modes? That is, when
disks fail do they tend to get isolated areas of badness compared to
complete loss? I would suggest that complete loss should include
someone tripping ove
Can that same method be used to figure out what files changed between
snapshots?
Wout.
On 22 May 2006, at 08:25, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:23:02PM -0600, Gregory Shaw wrote:
DATASET OBJECT RANGE
1b 2402lvl=0 blkid=1965
I haven't found
On 09 May 2006, at 23:48, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Wout Mertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
WOFS lives on a Write once medium, WOFS itself is not write once.
Oops, now that I read your thesis, I see. So you can treat a WORM
like a normal disk. Cool :)
How come it never got traction?
On 09 May 2006, at 18:09, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 05:37:07PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Wout Mertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but WOFS is a write-once filesystem. ZFS is read-write. What
happens if you delete the file referenced by the inode-sof
On 07 May 2006, at 17:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Look at my WOFS from 1990... It uses 'gnodes' that include the
filename
in one single meta data chunk for a file. Hard links are
implemented as
inode number related soft links (while symlinks are name related
soft links).
If ZFS did use my
