> From Neil's comment in the blog entry that you > referenced, that sounds *very* dicey (at least by > comparison with the level of redundancy that you've > built into the rest of your system) - even if you > have rock-solid UPSs (which have still been known to > fail). Allowing a disk to lie to higher levels of > the system (if indeed that's what you did by 'turning > off cache flush') by saying that it's completed a > write when it really hasn't is usually a very bad > idea, because those higher levels really *do* make > important assumptions based on that information.
I think the point of dual battery-backed controllers is that data should never bet lost. Perhaps I don't know enough. Is it that bad? This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
