Hello Richard,
Thursday, April 16, 2009, 8:41:53 PM, you wrote:
RE> Tim wrote:
>> 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.
RE> Excuses? I did sense an issue with terminology and messaging, but
RE> there are no excuses here. ZFS detected a problem. The problem did
RE> not affect his data, as it was recovered.
RE> I'd like to reiterate here that if you can think of a better way to
RE> communicate with people, then please file a bug. Changes in
RE> messages and docs tend to be much easier than changes in logic.
RE> P.S. don't shoot the canary!
I suspect that Uwe thought that unless he do 'zpool clear' there was
something wrong and that it is required to do so. Well, actually not -
it's only an information that corruption happened but thanks to
redundancy, checksums and zfs applications got *correct* data and
corrupted data was fixed. zpool clear is only to "reset" statistics os
such errors and nothing more, and one doesn't even have to bother
checking for it if that someone don't care about being pro-active to
possible future failure.
--
Best regards,
Robert Milkowski
http://milek.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
