On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:38, Uwe Dippel <udip...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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'
You don not have to status it regularly if you don't want to. Just as with any other file system. The difference is that you can. Just as you can and should do on your RAID system that you use with any other file system. If you do not have any problems ZFS will just work. If you have problems ZFS will śhow them to you much better than EXT3, FFS, UFS or other traditional filesystem. And often fix them for you. In many cases you would get corrupted data or have to run fsck for the same error on FFS/UFS. Scrub is much nicer than fsck, it is not easy to know the best answer to the questons that fsck will give you if you have a serious metadata problem on FFS/UFS. And yes, you can get into trouble even on OpenBSD. You also have to look at the complexity of your volume manager as ZFS is both a filesystem and volume manager in one. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
