James Dickens wrote:
On 9/13/06, Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:29:55PM -0500, James Dickens wrote:
>
> this would not be the first time that Solaris overrided an administive
> command, because its just not safe or sane to do so. For example.
>
> rm -rf /
As I've repeated before, and will continue to repeat, it's not actually
possible for ZFS to determine whether a pool is in active use (short of
making ZFS a cluster-aware filesystem). Adding arbitrary delays doesn't
change this fact, and only less likely. I've given you examples of
where this behavior is safe and sane and useful, so the above
simplification (upon which most of the other arguments are based) isn't
really valid.
I disagree with this, isn't there way to track when the last read was?
Track ? Doesn't that imply a write. Writing is a bad idea because it
can cause otherwise spun-down disks to need to be spun-up - which is
bad for power consumption and possibly for the disk time to failure.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
