> > <trim> > > Wow. That's kinda shocking. I mean, it shouldn't be, but it's almost like > we're f'd with a basic backup plan because the odds of having simultaneous > corruption of a critical file over the course of time on two separate drives > is actually not insignificant. > > > > > And this isn't a RAID5, is it? If so, you're in for problems. > > It is RAID 1. So, yes. > > It's a relatively low priority server, in that it's not accumulating > critical data. We can blow it away, rebuild it, and restore the print queues > very quickly and be back up and running - even if we had to change platforms > since it's a 3-platform RIP. However, the lack of error detection means the > software RAID 1 likely took corruption as valid changes and propagated that > to the other drive. So there's a good chance the data on both drives is f'd. > That's the take away from this....rebuild it all from scratch, not from > backup and not allowing the new drive to be rebuilt from the mirrored drive. > > > Chris >
But even with low priority servers, you don't really want corrupt data. This is one of the the reasons why I am such a big fan of zfs, that Apple were going to add to Leopard and then didn't. However, it is still worth popping Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris file servers into your network to get the benefits that zfs brings. See Why do geeks have lust for ZFS?<http://tech.zamwi.com/2007/01/16/why-do-geeks-have-lust-for-zfs/>and other web pages for more info... Bob _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
