On Apr 19, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Ricardo Correia wrote:
eric kustarz wrote:
Two reasons:
1) cluttered the output (as the path name is variable length). We
could perhaps add another flag (-V or -vv or something) to display
the
ranges.
2) i wasn't convinced that output was useful, especially to most
users/admins.
If we did provide the range information, how would you actually use
that information?
or would providing the number of checksum errors per file be what
you're really looking for?
I agree that the current display is more appropriate as a default.
But yes, I think adding a -vv flag to show the range output would be
useful. It seems interesting from an observability standpoint, since I
could easily tell how much damage did the file get. Simply telling the
number of checksum errors per file would be useful too, but not as
useful it was since each checksum error can be between 512 bytes
and 128 KB.
I agree it would be interesting (especially for us developers). What
i'm curious is (and anyone can answer), what action would you take
(or not take) based on this additional information?
ps: could you send me the 'zpool status -v' output for curiosity's
sake
Sure :)
thanks...
eric
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
