On 9/12/06, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So it seems to me that having this feature per-file is really useful. Say i have a presentation to give in Pleasanton, and the presentation lives on my single-disk laptop - I want all the meta-data and the actual presentation to be replicated. We already use ditto blocks for the meta-data. Now we could have an extra copy of the actual data. When i get back from the presentation i can turn off the extra copies.
Yes, you could do that. *I* would make a copy on a CD, which I would carry in a separate case from the laptop. I think my presentation is a lot safer than your presentation. Similarly for your digital images example; I don't consider it safe until I have two or more *independent* copies. Two copies on a single hard drive doesn't come even close to passing the test for me; as many people have pointed out, those tend to fail all at once. And I will also point out that laptops get stolen a lot. And of course all the accidents involving fumble-fingers, OS bugs, and driver bugs won't be helped by the data duplication either. (Those will mostly be helped by sensible use of snapshots, though, which is another argument for ZFS on *any* disk you work on a lot.) The more I look at it the more I think that a second copy on the same disk doesn't protect against very much real-world risk. Am I wrong here? Are partial(small) disk corruptions more common than I think? I don't have a good statistical view of disk failures. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
