On Feb 9, 2009, at 7:06 PM, Jeff Bonwick wrote: >>There is no substitute for cord-yank tests - many and often. The >>weird part is, the ZFS design team simulated millions of them. >>So the full explanation remains to be uncovered? > >We simulated power failure; we did not simulate disks that simply >blow off write ordering. Any disk that you'd ever deploy in an >enterprise or storage appliance context gets this right. > >The good news is that ZFS is getting popular enough on consumer-grade >hardware. The bad news is that said hardware has a different set of >failure modes, so it takes a bit of work to become resilient to them. >This is pretty high on my short list.
Speaking of "modes of failure": historically fsck has been used for slightly different (although related purposes): 0. as a tool capable of restoring consistency in a FS that didn't guarantee an always consistent on-disk state 1. as a forensics tool that would let you retrieve as much information as possible from a physically ill device Thanks goodness, ZFS doesn't need fsck for #0. That still leaves #1. So far all we have in that department is zdb/mdb. These two can do wonders when used by professionals, yet still fall into "don't try that at home" category for everybody else. Does such a tool sound reasonable? Does it have a chance of ever showing up on your list? Thanks, Roman. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
