On Thu, February 12, 2009 10:10, Ross wrote: > Of course, that does assume that devices are being truthful when they say > that data has been committed, but a little data loss from badly designed > hardware is I feel acceptable, so long as ZFS can have a go at recovering > corrupted pools when it does happen, instead of giving up completely like > it does now.
Well; not "acceptable" as such. But I'd agree it's outside ZFS's purview. The blame for data lost due to hardware actively lying and not working to spec goes to the hardware vendor, not to ZFS. If ZFS could easily and reliably warn about such hardware I'd want it to, but the consensus seems to be that we don't have a reliable qualification procedure. In terms of upselling people to a Sun storage solution, having ZFS diagnose problems with their cheap hardware early is clearly desirable :-). -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
