I hear that. Had it been a prod box, I'd have been a lot more paranoid and careful. This was a new vdev with a fresh zone installed on it, so I only lost a half hour of effort (whew). The seriousness of the zfs destroy command, though, really hit home during this process, and I wanted to find out if the command was really that serious, hence my original post. Could have been a really bad deal.
zfs undestroy certainly would be a lifesaver for people who have to learn this the hard way. Maybe it could be implemented with an algorithm to the effect of 'keep a pointer somewhere to the old fs bits and don't touch destroyed blocks until we run out of unused/virgin blocks, then go ahead and use them up without hesitation.' Kind of a free block pool with priority. thx for your input, everyone. jake On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM, dick hoogendijk <d...@nagual.nl> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:16:37 -0500 > Christine Tran <christine.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Everybody respects rm -f *. > +1 > > -- > Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D > + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce snv105 ++ > + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) > _______________________________________________ > 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
