Orvar Korvar wrote:
> Ok. Just to confirm: A modern disk has already some spare capacity which is
> not normally utilized by ZFS, UFS, etc. If the spare capacity is finished,
> then the disc should be replaced.
>
Yup, that is the case.
___
zfs-discus
Uwe Dippel wrote:
We have seen some unfortunate miscommunication here, and misinterpretation.
This extends into differences of culture. One of the vocal person in here is
surely not 'Anti-xyz'; rather I sense his intense desire to further the
progress by pointing his finger to some potential w
Ross wrote:
I can also state with confidence that very, very few of the 100 staff working
here will even be aware that it's possible to unmount a USB volume in windows.
They will all just pull the plug when their work is saved, and since they all
come to me when they have problems, I think I
Miles Nordin wrote:
gm> That implies that ZFS will have to detect removable devices
gm> and treat them differently than fixed devices.
please, no more of this garbage, no more hidden unchangeable automatic
condescending behavior. The whole format vs rmformat mess is just
ridiculous. An
Richard Elling wrote:
Greg Palmer wrote:
Miles Nordin wrote:
gm> That implies that ZFS will have to detect removable devices
gm> and treat them differently than fixed devices.
please, no more of this garbage, no more hidden unchangeable automatic
condescending behavior. The whole for
Miles Nordin wrote:
Hope this helps untangle some FUD. Snapshot backups of databases
*are* safe, unless the database or application above it is broken in a
way that makes cord-yanking unsafe too.
Actually Miles, what they were asking for is generally referred to as a
checkpoint and they are
Miles Nordin wrote:
gp> Performing a checkpoint will perform such tasks as making sure
gp> that all transactions recorded in the log but not yet written
gp> to the database are written out and that the system is not in
gp> the middle of a write when you grab the data.
great copyi
