Is it possible that a faulty disk controller could cause corruption to a zpool? I think I had this experience recently when doing a 'zpool replace' with both the old/new device attached to a controller that I discovered was faulty (because I got data checksum errors, and had to dig for backups).
Blake On 8/11/07, Richard L. Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In the old days of UFS, on occasion one might create > > multiple file systems (using multiple partitions) of > > a large LUN if filesystem corruption was a concern. > > It didn't happen often but filesystem corruption > > has happened. So, if filesystem X was corrupt > > filesystem Y would be just fine. > > > > With ZFS, does the same logic hold true for two > > filesystems coming from the same pool? > > > > Said slightly differently, I'm assuming that if the > > pool becomes mangled some how then all filesystems > > will be toast … but is it possible to have one > > filesystem be corrupted while the other filesystems > > are fine? > > > > Hmmm, does the answer depend on if the filesystems > > are nested > > ex: 1 /my_fs_1 /my_fs_2 > > ex: 2 /home_dirs /home_dirs/chris > > > > TIA! > > > If they're always consistent on-disk, and the checksumming catches storage > subsystem errors out to almost 100% certainty, then the only corruption > can > come from bugs in the code, or uncaught non-storage (i.e. CPU, memory) > bugs perhaps. > > So I suppose the answer would depend on where in the code things > went astray; but that you probably could not expect any sort of isolation > or even sanity at that point; if privileged code is running amok, anything > could happen, and that would be true with two distinct ufs filesystems > too, > I would think. Perhaps one might guess that it might be more likely > for corruption not to be isolated to a single zfs filesystem (given how > lightweight a zfs filesystem is). OTOH, since zfs catches errors other > filesystems don't, think of how many ufs filesystems may well be corrupt > for a very long time before causing a panic and having that get discovered > by fsck. Ideally, if zfs code passes its test suites, you're safer with > it than > with most anything else, even if it isn't perfect. > > But I'm way out on a limb here; no doubt the experts will correct and > amend what I've said... > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
