> > One of the benefits of ZFS is that not only is head synchronization not > > needed, but also block offsets do not have to be the same. For example, > > in a traditional mirror, block 1 on device 1 is paired with block 1 on > > device 2. In ZFS, this 1:1 mapping is not required. I believe this will > > result in ZFS being more resilient to disks with multiple block failures. > > In order for a traditional RAID to implement this, it would basically > > need to [re]invent a file system. > > -- richard > > This does not seem to be enforced (! 1:1) in code anywhere that I can > see. By not required are you pointing that this is able to be done in the > future, or is this the case right now and I am missing the code that > accomplishes this?
I think he means that if a block fails to write on a VDEV, ZFS can write that data elsewhere and is not forced to use that location. As opposed to SVM as an example, where the mirror must try to write at a particular offset or fail. -- 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
