Hello all, I think the problem here is the ZFS´ capacity for recovery from a failure. Forgive me, but thinking about creating a code "without failures", maybe the hackers did forget that other people can make mistakes (if they can´t). - "ZFS does not need fsck". Ok, that´s a great statement, but i think ZFS needs one. Really does. And in my opinion a enhanced zdb would be the solution. Flexibility. Options. - "I have 90% of something i think is your filesystem, do you want it"? I think a software is as good as it can recovery from failures. And i don´t want to know who failed, i´m not going to send anyone to jail, i´m not a lawyer. I agree with Jeff, really do, but that is "another" problem... The solution Jeff is working one, i think is really great, since it does NOT be the "all or nothing" again... I don´t know about you, but A LOT of times i was saved by the "Lost and Found" directory! All the beauty of a UNIX system is "rm /etc/passwd" after have edited it, and get the whole file doing a "cat /dev/mem". ;-) I think there are a lot of parts in ZFS design that remembers me when you see something left on the floor at home, so you ask for your son why he did not get it, and he says "it was not me". peace.
Leal. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
