> >> ... If the block checksums > >> show OK, then reading the parity for the corresponding data yields no > >> additional useful information. > > > > It would yield useful information about the status of the parity > > information on disk. > > > > The read would be done because you're already paying the penalty for > > reading all the data blocks, so you can verify the stability of the > > parity information on disk by reading an additional amount. > > Sounds like this additional checking (I see your point) could be > optional?
Well, I'm not offering to implement it or anything. :-) Somehow from some of the early discussions of ZFS, I managed to "learn" that this was one of the fatures. What I read was wrong, or I misinterpreted it. (Either way, I'm afraid I've managed to repeat it to others since). I would expect such behavior to have some redundancy benefits and some performance and code complexity impacts. I think it's a neat idea and I'm sorry to learn that I've been misunderstanding this as a feature, but I can't guess what the cost of implementing it would be. I suppose having it as a per-pool option could make sense. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
