On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Espen Martinsen wrote:
Let's say I've chosen to live with a zpool without redundancy, (SAN disks, has actually raid5 in disk-cabinet)
What benefit are you hoping zfs will provide in this situation? Examine your situation carefully and determine what filesystem works best for you. There are many reasons to use ZFS, but if your configuration isn't set up to take advantage of those reasons, then there's a disconnect somewhere.
The question: Would it be a good idea to torn OFF the 'checksum' property of the ZFS filesystems?
No. It is never a good idea to turn off checksumming. Why run ZFS at all, then? Without checksums, it can't detect bad data. Without redundancy, it can't repair bad data. At least if you have checksums on, you get to know which files are corrupt and need to be restored from backup.
Given the name of your pool, though ("BACKUP"), it seems to me that you'd want this to be as safe as possible. In other words, both redundancy and checksums. If you can export non-redundant disks from your cabinet, and let ZFS manage the redundancy, that seems like it would give you the best protection.
I know the manual says it is not recommended to turn off integrity of user-data, but what will happen if the algorithm actually finds one? I would not have any way to fix that, except delete/overrite the data. (will I be able to point out what files are involved)
Yes, with checksumming on, zfs can tell you exactly which files are bad, even in a non-redundant pool.
Regards, markm _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
