> On 9/15/06, can you guess? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
...
file-level, however, is really pushing
> it. You might end
> up with an administrative nightmare deciphering which
> files have how
> many copies.\
I'm not sure what you mean: the level of redundancy would be a per-file
attribute
>By the way, is there a way to view just the responses that have accumulated in
>this forum since I
>last visited - or just those I've never looked at before?
Not through the web interface itself, as far as I can tell, but there's an RSS
feed of messages that might do the trick. Unfortunately
On September 15, 2006 3:49:14 PM -0700 "can you guess?"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(I looked at my email before checking here, so I'll just cut-and-paste
the email response in here rather than send it. By the way, is there a
way to view just the responses that have accumulated in this forum sinc
(I looked at my email before checking here, so I'll just cut-and-paste the
email response in here rather than send it. By the way, is there a way to view
just the responses that have accumulated in this forum since I last visited -
or just those I've never looked at before?)
Bill Moore wrote:
Is this true for single-sector, vs. single-ZFS-block, errors? (Yes, it's
pathological and probably nobody really cares.) I didn't see anything in the
code which falls back on single-sector reads. (It's slightly annoying that the
interface to the block device drivers loses the SCSI error status,
Celso wrote:
a couple of points
One could make the argument that the feature could
cause enough
confusion to not warrant its inclusion. If I'm a
typical user and I
write a file to the filesystem where the admin set
three copies but
didn't tell me it might throw me into a tizzy trying
to f
a couple of points
> One could make the argument that the feature could
> cause enough
> confusion to not warrant its inclusion. If I'm a
> typical user and I
> write a file to the filesystem where the admin set
> three copies but
> didn't tell me it might throw me into a tizzy trying
> to figu
> Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> > Here is a proposal for a new 'copies' property
> which would allow
> > different levels of replication for different
> filesystems.
>
> Thanks everyone for your input.
>
> The problem that this feature attempts to address is
> when you have some
> data that is more i
On 12/09/06, Celso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the great things about zfs, is that it protects not just against
mechanical failure, but against silent data corruption. Having this available
to laptop owners seems to me to be important to making zfs even more attractive.
I'm not arguing
Take this for what it is: the opinion on someone who knows less about zfs than
probably anyone else on this thread ,but...
I would like to add my support for this proposal.
As I understand it, the reason for using ditto blocks on metadata, is that
maintaining their integrity is vital for the he
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Anton B. Rang wrote:
reformatted
> >True - I'm a laptop user myself. But as I said, I'd assume the whole disk
> >would fail (it does in my experience).
Usually a laptop disk suffers a mechanical failure - and the failure rate
is a lot higher than disks in a fixed lo
>True - I'm a laptop user myself. But as I said, I'd assume the whole disk
>would fail (it does in my experience).
That's usually the case, but single-block failures can occur as well. They're
rare (check the "uncorrectable bit error rate" specifications) but if they
happen to hit a critical fil
Anton B. Rang wrote:
The biggest problem I see with this is one of observability, if not all
of the data is encrypted yet what should the encryption property say ?
If it says encryption is on then the admin might think the data is
"safe", but if it says it is off that isn't the truth either bec
>The biggest problem I see with this is one of observability, if not all
>of the data is encrypted yet what should the encryption property say ?
>If it says encryption is on then the admin might think the data is
>"safe", but if it says it is off that isn't the truth either because
>some of it
> Hi Matt,
> Interesting proposal. Has there been any
> consideration if free space being reported for a ZFS
> filesystem would take into account the copies
> setting?
>
> Example:
> zfs create mypool/nonredundant_data
> zfs create mypool/redundant_data
> df -h /mypool/nonredundant_data
> /
Hi Matt,
Interesting proposal. Has there been any consideration if free space being
reported for a ZFS filesystem would take into account the copies setting?
Example:
zfs create mypool/nonredundant_data
zfs create mypool/redundant_data
df -h /mypool/nonredundant_data /mypool/redun
16 matches
Mail list logo
