Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-25 Thread Paul Kraus
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Mike Gerdts wrote: > Some people have trained their fingers to use the -f option on every > command that supports it to force the operation.  For instance, how > often do you do rm -rf vs. rm -r and answer questions about every > file? The last time I tried i

Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-25 Thread Fred Liu
> Some people have trained their fingers to use the -f option on every > command that supports it to force the operation. For instance, how > often do you do rm -rf vs. rm -r and answer questions about every > file? > > If various zpool commands (import, create, replace, etc.) are used > against

Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-25 Thread Fred Liu
Paul, Thanks. I understand now. Fred > -Original Message- > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus > Sent: 星期一, 十月 24, 2011 22:38 > To: ZFS Discussions > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reli

Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-24 Thread Paul Kraus
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Paul Kraus wrote: > Recently someone posted to this list of that _exact_ situation, they loaded > an OS to a pair of drives while a pair of different drives containing an OS > were still attached. The zpool on the first pair ended up not being able to > be import

Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-22 Thread Fajar A. Nugraha
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Paul Kraus wrote: > Recently someone posted to this list of that _exact_ situation, they loaded > an OS to a pair of drives while a pair of different drives containing an OS > were still attached. The zpool on the first pair ended up not being able to > be importe

Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-21 Thread Paul Kraus
Recently someone posted to this list of that _exact_ situation, they loaded an OS to a pair of drives while a pair of different drives containing an OS were still attached. The zpool on the first pair ended up not being able to be imported, and were corrupted. I can post more info when I am back in

Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-21 Thread Mike Gerdts
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Fred Liu wrote: > >> 3. Do NOT let a system see drives with more than one OS zpool at the >> same time (I know you _can_ do this safely, but I have seen too many >> horror stories on this list that I just avoid it). >> > > Can you elaborate #3? In what situation wi

Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-21 Thread Fred Liu
> 3. Do NOT let a system see drives with more than one OS zpool at the > same time (I know you _can_ do this safely, but I have seen too many > horror stories on this list that I just avoid it). > Can you elaborate #3? In what situation will it happen? Thanks. Fred ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-18 Thread Paul Kraus
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: > Your 1-3 is very sensible advice Unfortunately, I don't think I have ever seen the recommendations I made stated quite so plainly. >and I must ask about this > statement: >>I have yet to have any data loss with ZFS. > > Maybe this

Re: [zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-18 Thread Cindy Swearingen
Hi Paul, Your 1-3 is very sensible advice and I must ask about this statement: >I have yet to have any data loss with ZFS. Maybe this goes without saying, but I think you are using ZFS redundancy. Thanks, Cindy On 10/18/11 08:52, Paul Kraus wrote: On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Gregory Sh

[zfs-discuss] FS Reliability WAS: about btrfs and zfs

2011-10-18 Thread Paul Kraus
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Gregory Shaw wrote: > Another item that made me nervous was my experience with ZFS.  Even when > called 'ready for production', a number of bugs were found that were pretty > nasty. > They've since been fixed (years ago), but there were some surprises there > th