On 5/2/10 3:12 PM, "Bob Friesenhahn" <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On the flip-side, using 'zfs scrub' puts more stress on the system > which may make it more likely to fail. It increases load on the power > supplies, CPUs, interfaces, and disks. A system which might work fine > under normal load may be stressed and misbehave under scrub. Using > scrub on a weak system could actually increase the chance of data > loss. If my system is going to fail under the stress of a scrub, it's going to fail under the stress of a resilver. From my perspective, I'm not as scared of data corruption as I am of data corruption *that I don't know about.* I only keep backups for a finite amount of time. If I scrub every week, and my zpool dies during a scrub, then I know it's time to pull out last week's backup, where I know (thanks to scrubbing) the data was not corrupt. I've lived the experience where a user comes to me because he tried to open a seven-year-old file and it was corrupt. Not a blankety-blank thing I could do, because we only retain backup tapes for four years and the four-year-old tape had a backup of the file post-corruption. Data loss may be unavoidable, but that's why we keep backups. It's the invisible data loss that makes life suboptimal. -- Dave Pooser, ACSA Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
