Thanks again for answering! :)
2012-01-16 10:08, Richard Elling wrote:
On Jan 15, 2012, at 7:04 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?
That's a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula
that I have lately.
Simple answer: no. raidz provides data
Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?
That's a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula
that I have lately.
Reading up on theory of RAID5, I grasped the idea of the write
hole (where one of the sectors of the stripe, such as the parity
data, doesn't get written - leading to
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
1) How does raidzN protect agaist bit-rot without known full
death of a component disk, if it at all does?
Or does it only help against loud corruption where the
disk
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?
That's a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula
that I have lately.
Yup, it does. That's why many of us use it.
The way I get it, RAID5/6 generally has no mechanism
2012-01-15 19:38, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
1) How does raidzN protect agaist bit-rot without known full
death of a component disk, if it at all does?
zfs can read disks 1,2,3,4... Then read disks 1,2,3,5...
Then read disks 1,2,4,5... ZFS can figure out which disk
returned the faulty
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012, Jim Klimov wrote:
1) How does raidzN protect agaist bit-rot without known full
death of a component disk, if it at all does?
Or does it only help against loud corruption where the
disk reports a sector-access error or dies completely?
Here is a layman's answer since
2012-01-15 20:06, Peter Tribble wrote:
(Try writing over one
half of a zfs mirror with dd and watch it cheerfully repair your data
without an actual error in sight.)
Are you certain it always works?
AFAIK, mirror reads are round-robined (which leads to parallel
read performance boosts). Only
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 04:06:33PM +, Peter Tribble wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?
That's a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula
that I have lately.
Yup, it does. That's why many
Gary Mills wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 04:06:33PM +, Peter Tribble wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?
That's a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula
that I have lately.
2012-01-15 20:43, Gary Mills пишет:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 04:06:33PM +, Peter Tribble wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Jim Klimovjimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?
That's a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula
that I have lately.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
2012-01-15 19:38, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
1) How does raidzN protect agaist bit-rot without known full
death of a component disk, if it at all does?
zfs can read disks
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Gary Mills
There's actually no such thing as bitrot on a disk. Each sector on
the disk is accompanied by a CRC that's verified by the disk
controller on each read. It will either return
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Such failures can happen undetected with or without ECC memory. It's simply
less likely with ECC. The whole thing about ECC memory... It's just doing
parity. It's a very weak checksum. If corruption happens in memory, it's
I am beginning to
On Jan 15, 2012, at 7:04 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?
That's a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula
that I have lately.
Simple answer: no. raidz provides data protection. Checksums verify
data is correct. Two different parts of the
On Jan 15, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Such failures can happen undetected with or without ECC memory. It's simply
less likely with ECC. The whole thing about ECC memory... It's just doing
parity. It's a very weak checksum. If
15 matches
Mail list logo
