[zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data

2006-09-13 Thread Anton B. Rang
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,

[zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data

2006-09-12 Thread Celso
> 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

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data

2006-09-12 Thread Dick Davies
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

[zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data

2006-09-12 Thread Celso
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

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data

2006-09-12 Thread Al Hopper
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

[zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data

2006-09-12 Thread Anton B. Rang
>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

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data

2006-09-12 Thread Darren J Moffat
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

[zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data

2006-09-12 Thread Anton B. Rang
>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

[zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data

2006-09-12 Thread Ceri Davies
> 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 > /

[zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data

2006-09-11 Thread William D. Hathaway
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