Well said. -original message- Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Proposed idea for enhancement - damage control From: Bob Friesenhahn <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> Date: 02/17/2010 11:10
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Marty Scholes wrote: > > Bob, the vast majority of your post I agree with. At the same time, I might > disagree with a couple of things. > > I don't really care how long a resilver takes (hours, days, months) given a > couple things: > * Sufficient protection exists on the degraded array during rebuild > ** Put another way, the array is NEVER in danger > * Rebuild takes a back seat to production demands Most data loss is due to human error. To me it seems like disks which take a week to resilver introduce more opportunity for human error. The maintenance operation fades from human memory while it is still underway. If an impeccable log book is not kept and understood, then it is up to (potentially) multiple administrators with varying levels of experience to correctly understand and interpret the output of 'zpool status'. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
