Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Ian Collins wrote: > >> But people expect RAID to protect them from the corruption caused by a >> partial failure, say a bad block, which is a common failure mode. > > > They do? I must admit no experience with the big standalone raid > array storage units, just (expensive) HW raid cards, but I have never > expected an array to protect me against data corruption. Bad blocks > can be detected and remapped, and maybe the array can recalculate the > block from parity etc, but that is a known disk error, and not the > subtle kinds of errors created by the RAID array that are being > claimed here. > I must admit that 'they' in my experience have been windows admins!
>> I don't think that the issue here, it's more one of perceived data >> integrity. People who have been happily using a single RAID 5 are now >> finding that the array has been silently corrupting their data. > > > They are? They are being told that the problems they are having is > due to that but there is no proof. It could be a bad driver for > example. Either way, they are still finding errors they didn't know existed. >> >> ZFS looks to be the perfect tool for mirroring hardware RAID arrays, >> with the advantage over other schemes of knowing which side of the >> mirror has an error. Thus ZFS can be used as a tool to compliment, >> rather than replace hardware RAID. > > > I agree. That is what I am doing :-) > I'll be interested to see how you get on. Cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
