>Running this kind of setup absolutely can give you NO garanties at all. >Virtualisation, OSOL/zfs on WinXP. It's nice to play with and see it >"working" but would I TRUST precious data to it? No way!
why not? if i write some data trough virtualization layer which goes straight trough to raw disk - what`s the problem? do a snapshot and you can be sure you have a safe state. or not? you can check if you are consistent by doing a scrub. or not? taken buffers/caches into consideration, you could eventually loose some seconds/minutes of work, but doesn`t zfs use transactional design which ensures consistency? so, how can that happen what´s being reported here, if zfs takes so much care of consistency? >When that happens, ZFS believes the data is safely written, but a power cut or >>crash can cause severe problems with the pool. didn`t i read a million times that zfs ensures an "always consistent state" and is self healing, too? so, if new blocks are always written at new positions - why can`t we just roll back to a point in time (for example last snapshot) which is known to be safe/consistent ? i give a shit about the last 5 minutes of work if i can recover my TB sized pool instead. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
