Hello Blake,
Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 5:18:19 PM, you wrote:
B> You only need to decide what you want here. Yes, ext3 requires less
B> maintenance, because it can't tell you if a block becomes corrupt
B> (though fsck-in when that *does* happen can require hours, compared to
B> zfs replacing with a good block from the other half of your mirror).
I can't agree that ext3 requires less maintenance, actually it is
quite the opposite.
If everything is fine, there is no data corruption then you don't have
to do anything on both file systems. But when corruption happens on
one side of a mirror you still don't have to do anything in zfs case
and your data returned to applications will still be correct while
corrupted data on a disk will be automatically repaired. Now if you
really value your data you probably want to monitor if such
correctable by zfs events happen and investigate further to prevent
eventual failure - but you don't have to.
In ext3 case if one side of a mirror returns corrupted data you will
end-up with applications getting BAD data and/or will have to fsck
filesystem and/or will loose some or all data and/or OS will panic,
etc.
Then if you do want to investigate then on Open Solaris platform
thanks to zfs, fma and other tools you've actualy got some chance to
nail down the underlying issue while on Linux with ext3 you end-up
blaming unidentified bugs (well, one might argue that lack of data
consistency checking and repair in fs is a bug...) in you file system
or at least your toolset to find what's going on is somewhat limited
to what Open Solaris has to offer.
--
Best regards,
Robert Milkowski
http://milek.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
