Without doing a zpool scrub, what's the quickest way to find files in a
filesystem with cksum errors? Iterating over all files with find takes
quite a bit of time. Maybe there's some zdb fu that will perform the
check for me?
--
albert chin (ch...@thewrittenword.com)
On Sep 28, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Albert Chin wrote:
Without doing a zpool scrub, what's the quickest way to find files
in a
filesystem with cksum errors? Iterating over all files with find
takes
quite a bit of time. Maybe there's some zdb fu that will perform the
check for me?
Scrub could be
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Scrub could be faster, but you can try
tar cf - . /dev/null
If you think about it, validating checksums requires reading the data.
So you simply need to read the data.
This should work but it does not verify the redundant metadata. For
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:09:03PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Scrub could be faster, but you can try
tar cf - . /dev/null
If you think about it, validating checksums requires reading the data.
So you simply need to read the data.
This
On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:09:03PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Scrub could be faster, but you can try
tar cf - . /dev/null
If you think about it, validating checksums requires reading the
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:09:03PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Scrub could be faster, but you can try
tar
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
This should work but it does not verify the redundant metadata. For example,
the duplicate metadata copy might be corrupt but the problem is not detected
since it did not happen to be used.
I am finding that your tar incantation is reading hardly
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:16:20AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:09:03PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Scrub could be faster, but you can try
tar cf - . /dev/null
If
Richard Elling wrote:
On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:09:03PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Scrub could be faster, but you can try
tar cf - . /dev/null
If you think about it, validating checksums
On Sep 28, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Victor Latushkin wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:09:03PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Scrub could be faster, but you can try
tar cf - .
On 28.09.09 22:01, Richard Elling wrote:
On Sep 28, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Victor Latushkin wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:09:03PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Scrub could be
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
In other words, I am concerned that people replace good
data protection
practices with scrubs and expecting scrub to deliver better data
protection
(it won't).
Many people here would profoundly disagree with the above. There is
On Sep 28, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
In other words, I am concerned that people replace good data
protection
practices with scrubs and expecting scrub to deliver better
data protection
(it won't).
Many people
On Sep 28, 2009, at 19:39, Richard Elling wrote:
Finally, there are two basic types of scrubs: read-only and
rewrite. ZFS does
read-only. Other scrubbers can do rewrite. There is evidence that
rewrites
are better for attacking superparamagnetic decay issues.
Something that may be
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Scrub could be faster, but you can try
tar cf - . /dev/null
If you think about it, validating checksums requires reading the data.
So you simply need to read the data.
This should work but it does not verify the
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Scrub could be faster, but you can try
tar cf - . /dev/null
If you think about it, validating checksums requires reading the data.
So you simply need to read the data.
This should work but it
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote:
Many people here would profoundly disagree with the above. There is no
substitute for good backups, but a periodic scrub helps validate that a
later resilver would succeed. A perioic scrub also helps find system
problems early when they are less
17 matches
Mail list logo
