Torrey McMahon wrote:
eric kustarz wrote:
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
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 important (and thus needs a higher level of
redundancy) than other data. Of course in some situations you can
use multiple pools, but that is antithetical to ZFS's pooled storage
model. (You have to divide up your storage, you'll end up with
stranded storage and bandwidth, etc.)
Given the overwhelming criticism of this feature, I'm going to
shelve it for now.
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.
Under what failure nodes would your data still be accessible? What
things can go wrong that still allow you to access the data because
some event has removed one copy but left the others?
Silent data corruption of one of the copies.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
