On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha <fa...@fajar.net> wrote:
[...] Thanks, Fajar, et al. What this thread actually shows, alas, is that ZFS is rocket science. In 2009, one would expect a file system to 'just work'. Why would anyone want to have to 'status' it regularly, in case 'scrub' it, and if scrub doesn't do the trick (and still not knowing how serious the 'unrecoverable error' is - like in this case), 'clear' it, 'scrub' again, followed by another 'status', or even a more advanced fmdump -eV to see all hex values in there (and leave it to the interpretation of unknown what those actually are), and hope it will still make it; and in the end getting the suggestion to 'add another disk for RAID'. Serious, guys and girls, I am pretty glad that I still run my servers on OpenBSD (despite all temptations to change to OpenSolaris), where I can 'boot and forget' about them until a patch requires my action. If I can't trust the metadata of a pool (which might disappear completely or not, as we had to learn in here), and have to manually do all the tasks further up, or write a script to do that for me (and how shall I do that, if even in here seemingly an unrecoverable error can be recovered and no real explanation is forthcoming), by all means, this is a dead-born project; with all due respect that I as an engineer of 30 years have for you guys. I do guess and believe that ZFS is so much better as filesystem than any other, honestly. But the history of engineering has seen the best items fail, because their advanced features completely bypassed the market-place and its psychologies. Even I myself as an avid and responsible system administrator, I am not sure that I wanted to read 30+ pages of commands and explanations of ZFS-messages and comments: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide In the end, I don't feel like reading kernel code neither. Both kernel and file system simply need to do the job. And if they tend to fall over for lack of maintenance (that is manual control and configuration), they are useless in the real world. Yes, some will reiterate that with ZFS I can be sure to have 100% consistent data. That's all hunky dory. But we here simply cannot afford the huge effort that is seemingly required therefore. And in 99%+ of the cases, a very standard and easily handled FFS/UFS with RAID and backup will just do, as much as I personally feel how great of a step ZFS is in principle. Uwe _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
