Hi All,
I hope this is the correct place for this question as I think it was ZFS
that saved me.
A little while ago I did some thing very silly in a moment of non
concentration...
I meant to use dd to copy an image (around 500Mb) to a USB disk but instead
wrote over a non raided zfs disk!
This
2012-07-12 14:20, RichTea wrote:
I meant to use dd to copy an image (around 500Mb) to a USB disk but
instead wrote over a non raided zfs disk!
Below is various status output's: My question is how after a reboot did
the disk / zpool recover with from what I have seen so far no corruption
at
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
Purely speculating, I might however suggest that your disk was
dedicated to the pool completely, so its last blocks contain
spare uberblocks (zpool labels) and that might help ZFS
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Sašo Kiselkov
On 07/11/2012 05:58 PM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
You're entirely sure that there could never be two different blocks that
can
hash to the same value and have different content?
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nico Williams
IMO dedup should always verify.
IMO, it should be a decision left to the user or admin, with the default being
verify. (Exactly as it is now.) Because there is a
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Sašo Kiselkov
This is so profoundly wrong that it leads me to suspect you never took
courses on cryptography and/or information theory.
More inflammatory commentary, and personal comments?
From: Jim Klimov [mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:42 AM
To: Edward Ned Harvey
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?
2012-07-11 18:03, Edward Ned Harvey пишет:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
How did you decide it is okay and that zfs saved you? Did you
NOT post some further progress in your recovery?
I made no further recovery attempts, the pool imported cleanly after
rebooting, or so i thought [1] as a zpool status showed no errors and i
could read data from the drive again.
On
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: Jim Klimov [mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru]
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:42 AM
To: Edward Ned Harvey
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?
Hi Rich,
I don't think anyone can say definitively how this problem resolved,
but I believe that the dd command overwrote some of the disk label,
as you describe below.
Your format output below looks like you relabeled the disk and maybe
that was enough to resolve this problem.
I have had
On 07/12/2012 07:16 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
Sasso: yes, it's absolutely worth implementing a higher performing hashing
algorithm. I'd suggest simply ignoring the people that aren't willing to
acknowledge basic mathematics rather than lashing out. No point in feeding
the trolls. The PETABYTES of
On 07/12/2012 09:52 PM, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
I have far too much time to explain
P.S. that should have read I have taken far too much time explaining.
Men are crap at multitasking...
Cheers,
--
Saso
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012, bofh wrote:
When I do a snapshot, that file is part of the snapshot. But are
changes within the file kept as well?
Only the difference (at block level) between the snapshots is kept. If
13 matches
Mail list logo
