David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
But what about the parity? Obviously it has to be checked, but I can't
find
any indications for it in the literature. The man page only states that
the
data is being checksummed and only if that fails the redundancy is being
used.
Please tell me I'm wrong ;)
I believe y
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:29 AM, sensille wrote:
> But what I'm really targeting with my question: How much coverage can be
> reached with a find | xargs wc in contrast to scrub? It misses the snapshots,
> but anything beyond that?
Your script will also update the atime on every file, which may no
On Fri, June 4, 2010 03:29, sensille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a small question about the depth of scrub in a raidz/2/3
> configuration.
> I'm quite sure scrub does not check spares or unused areas of the disks
> (it
> could check if the disks detects any errors there).
> But what about the parity?
> I have a small question about the depth of scrub in a
> raidz/2/3 configuration.
> I'm quite sure scrub does not check spares or unused
> areas of the disks (it
> could check if the disks detects any errors there).
> But what about the parity?
>From some informal performance testing of RAIDZ2/3
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of sensille
>
> I'm quite sure scrub does not check spares or unused areas of the disks
> (it
> could check if the disks detects any errors there).
> But what about the parity? Obviously it has to
Hi,
I have a small question about the depth of scrub in a raidz/2/3 configuration.
I'm quite sure scrub does not check spares or unused areas of the disks (it
could check if the disks detects any errors there).
But what about the parity? Obviously it has to be checked, but I can't find
any indicat
