Hello przemolicc, Thursday, June 29, 2006, 10:08:23 AM, you wrote:
ppf> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:01:15AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: >> Hello przemolicc, >> >> Thursday, June 29, 2006, 8:01:26 AM, you wrote: >> >> ppf> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: >> >> ppf> What I wanted to point out is the Al's example: he wrote about >> >> damaged data. Data >> >> ppf> were damaged by firmware _not_ disk surface ! In such case ZFS >> >> doesn't help. ZFS can >> >> ppf> detect (and repair) errors on disk surface, bad cables, etc. But >> >> cannot detect and repair >> >> ppf> errors in its (ZFS) code. >> >> >> >> Not in its code but definitely in a firmware code in a controller. >> >> ppf> As Jeff pointed out: if you mirror two different storage arrays. >> >> Not only I belive. There are some classes of problems that even in one >> array ZFS could help for fw problems (with many controllers in >> active-active config like Symetrix). ppf> Any real example ? I wouldn't say such problems are common. The issue is we don't know. From time to time some files are bad, sometimes fsck is needed with no apparent reason. I think only the future will tell how and when ZFS will protect us. All I can say there's big potential in ZFS. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
