On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Uwe Dippel wrote: > >> >> 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 >> > > For common uses, ZFS is not any more complicated than your ephemeral > gmail.com email account but it seems that you have figured that out just > fine. Good for you. > > Bob > -- > Bob Friesenhahn > bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ > I can't say I've ever had to translate binary to recover an email from the trash bin with Gmail... which is for "common users". Unless of course you're suggesting "common users" will never want to recover a file after zfs alerts them it's corrupted. He's got a very valid point, and the responses are disheartening at best. Just because other file systems don't detect the corruption, or require lots of work to recover, does not make it OK for zfs to do the same. Excuses are just that, excuses. He isn't asking for an excuse, he's asking for an answer. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
