Jason Schroeder wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll bet that ZFS will generate more calls about broken hardware
and fingers will be pointed at ZFS at first because it's the new
kid; it will be some time before people realize that the data was
rotting all along.
Ehhh....I don't think so. Most of our customers have HW arrays that
have been scrubbing data for years and years as well as apps on the
top that have been verifying the data. (Oracle for example.) Not to
mention there will be a bit of time before people move over to ZFS in
the high end.
Ahh... but there is the rub. Today - you/we don't *really* know, do
we? Maybe there's bad juju blocks, maybe not. Running ZFS, whether
in a redundant vdev or not, will certainly turn the big spotlight on
and give us the data that checksums matched, or they didn't.
A spotlight on what? How is that data going to get into ZFS? The more I
think about this more I realize it's going to do little for existing
data sets. You're going to have to migrate that data from "filesystem X"
into ZFS first. From that point on ZFS has no idea if the data was bad
to begin with. If you can do an in place migration then you might be
able to weed out some bad physical blocks/drives over time but I assert
that the current disk scrubbing methodologies catch most of those.
Yes, it's great for new data sets where you started with ZFS. Sorry if I
sound like I'm raining on the parade here folks. That's not the case,
really, and I'm all for the great new features and EAU ZFS gives where
applicable.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
