On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 01:20:42PM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote: > >>>>> "gm" == Gary Mills <mi...@cc.umanitoba.ca> writes: > > gm> I suppose my RFE for two-level ZFS should be included, > > Not that my opinion counts for much, but I wasn't deaf to it---I did > respond.
I appreciate that. > I thought it was kind of based on mistaken understanding. It included > this strangeness of the upper ZFS ``informing'' the lower one when > corruption had occured on the network, and the lower ZFS was supposed > to do something with the physical disks...to resolve corruption on the > network? why? IIRC several others pointed out the same bogosity. It's a simply a consequence of ZFS's end-to-end error detection. There are many different components that could contribute to such errors. Since only the lower ZFS has data redundancy, only it can correct the error. Of course, if something in the data path consistently corrupts the data regardless of its origin, it won't be able to correct the error. The same thing can happen in the simple case, with one ZFS over physical disks. > It makes slightly more sense in the write direction than the read > direction maybe, but I still don't fully get the plan. It is a new > protocol to replace iSCSI? or NFS? or, what? Is it a re-invention > of pNFS or Lustre, but with more work since you're starting from zero, > and less architectural foresight? I deliberately did not specify the protocol to keep the concept general. Anything that works and solves the problem would be good. -- -Gary Mills- -Unix Support- -U of M Academic Computing and Networking- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
