On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Dick Davies wrote:
On 02/12/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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:>> 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 the >> whole 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 the > data (today) it simply says: sorry charlie - you pool is corrupt.Where a RAID system would still be salvageable.RAID level what? How is anything salvagable if you lose your only copy?
The whole raid does not fail -- we are talking about corruption here. If you lose some inodes your whole partition is not gone.
My ZFS pool would not salvage -- poof, whole thing was gone (granted it was a test one and not a raidz or mirror yet). But still, for what happened, I cannot believe that 20G of data got messed up because a 1GB cache was not correctly flushed.
Sorry for "bailing" on this topic. I did not mean to. Was on babysitting duty on the weekend and the new week hit with a vengeance on Monday. I will try and post a last post or two on the subject and let it die.
Chad
ZFS does store multiple copies of metadata in a single vdev, so I assume we're talking about data here.
--- 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
