On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 02:23:44PM -0400, Will Murnane wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 13:57, Miles Nordin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If that's really the excuse for this situation, then ZFS is not > > ``always consistent on the disk'' for single-VDEV pools. > Well, yes. If data is sent, but corruption somewhere (the SAS bus, > apparently, here) causes bad data to be written, ZFS can generally > detect but not fix that. It might be nice to have a "verifywrites" > mode or something similar to make sure that good data has ended up on > disk (at least at the time it checks), but failing that there's not > much ZFS (or any filesystem) can do. Using a pool with some level of > redundancy (mirroring, raidz) at least gives zfs a chance to read the > missing pieces from the redundancy that it's kept.
There's also ditto blocks. So even on a one vdev pool you ZFS can recover from random corruption unless you're really unlucky. Of course, this is a feature. Without ZFS the OP would have had silent, undetected (by the OS that is) data corruption. Basically you don't want to have one-vdev pools. If you'll use HW RAID then you should also do mirroring at the ZFS layer. Nico -- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
