On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Jeff Victor wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:On Dec 2, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Al Hopper wrote:On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:On Dec 2, 2006, at 6:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:While other file systems, when they become corrupt, allow you to salvage data :-)They allow you to salvage what you *think* is your data. But in reality, you have no clue what the disks are giving you.I stand by what I said. If you have a massive disk failure, yes. You are right. When you have subtle corruption, some of the data and meta data is bad but not all. In that case you can recover (and verify the data if you have the means to do so) t he parts that did not get corrupted. My ZFS experience so far is that it basically said thewhole 20GB pool was dead and I seriously doubt all 20GB was corrupted.That was because you built a pool with no redundancy. In the case where ZFS does not have a redundant config from which to try to reconstruct thedata (today) it simply says: sorry charlie - you pool is corrupt.Where a RAID system would still be salvageable.That is a comparison of apples to oranges. The RAID system has Redundancy. If the ZFS pool had been configured with redundancy, it would have fared at least as well as the RAID system.Without redundancy, neither of them can magically reconstruct data. The RAID system would simply be an AID system.
That is not the question. Assuming the error came OUT of the RAID system (which it did in this case as there was a bug in the driver and the cache did not get flushed in a certain shutdown situation), another FS would have been salvageable as the whole 20GB of the pool was not corrupt.
Chad --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
