> On 12/09/06, Celso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think it has already been said that in many > peoples experience, when a disk fails, it completely > fails. Especially on laptops. Of course ditto blocks > wouldn't help you in this situation either! > > Exactly. > > > I still think that silent data corruption is a > valid concern, one that ditto blocks would solve. > > Also, I am not thrilled about losing that much space > for duplication of unneccessary data (caused by > partitioning a disk in two). > > Well, you'd only be duplicating the data on the > mirror. If you don't want to > mirror the base OS, no one's saying you have to. >
Yikes! that sounds like even more partitioning! > For the sake of argument, let's assume: > > 1. disk is expensive > 2. someone is keeping valuable files on a > non-redundant zpool > 3. they can't scrape enough vdevs to make a redundant > zpool > (remembering you can build vdevs out of *flat > files*) > Even then, to my mind: > > to the user, the *file* (screenplay, movie of childs > birth, civ3 saved > game, etc.) > is the logical entity to have a 'duplication level' > attached to it, > and the only person who can score that is the author > of the file. > > This proposal says the filesystem creator/admin > scores the filesystem. > Your argument against unneccessary data duplication > applies to all 'non-special' > files in the 'special' filesystem. They're wasting > space too. > > If the user wants to make sure the file is 'safer' > than others, he can > just make > multiple copies. Either to a USB disk/flashdrive, > cdrw, dvd, ftp > server, whatever. > > The redundancy you're talking about is what you'd get > from 'cp /foo/bar.jpg /foo/bar.jpg.ok', except it's > hidden from the > user and causing > headaches for anyone trying to comprehend, port or > extend the codebase in > the future. the proposed solution differs in one important aspect: it automatically detects data corruption. > > I also echo Darren's comments on zfs performing > better when it has the whole disk. > > Me too, but a lot of laptop users dual-boot, which > makes it a moot point. > > > Hopefully we can agree that you lose nothing by > adding this feature, > > even if you personally don't see a need for it. > > Sorry, I don't think we're going to agree on this one > :) No worries, that's cool. > All the best > Dick. > > -- > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns > http://number9.hellooperator.net/ > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu > ss > Celso This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
