I think people can understand the concept of missing flushes. The big conceptual problem is how this manages to hose an entire filesystem, which is assumed to have rather a lot of data which ZFS has already verified to be ok.
Hardware ignoring flushes and loosing recent data is understandable, I don't think anybody would argue with that. Loosing access to your entire pool and multiple gigabytes of data because a few writes failed is a whole different story, and while I understand how it happens, ZFS appears to be unique among modern filesystems in suffering such a catastrophic failure so often. To give a quick personal example: I can plug a fat32 usb disk into a windows system, drag some files to it, and pull that drive at any point. I might loose a few files, but I've never lost the entire filesystem. Even if the absolute worst happened, I know I can run scandisk, chkdisk, or any number of file recovery tools and get my data back. I would never, ever attempt this with ZFS. For a filesystem like ZFS where it's integrity and stability are sold as being way better than existing filesystems, loosing your entire pool is a bit of a shock. I know that work is going on to be able to recover pools, and I'll sleep a lot sounder at night once it is available. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
