On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 06:31:59PM -0700, Dave wrote: > Gary Mills wrote: > >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, > > > >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. > > I would argue against building this into ZFS. Any corruption happening > on the wire should not be the responsibility of ZFS. If you want to make > sure your data is not corrupted over the wire, use IPSec. If you want to > prevent corruption in RAM, use ECC sticks, etc.
But what if the `wire' is a SCSI bus? Would you want ZFS to do error correction in that case? There are many possible wires. Every component does its own error checking of some sort, but in its own domain. This brings us back to end-to-end error checking again. Since we are designing a filesystem, that's where the reliability should reside. -- -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
