Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in redundancy decisions?
Yes because if ZFS doesn't know about it then ZFS can't use it to do
corrections when the checksums (which always work) detect problems.
We do not have the intelligent end-to-end management to make these
judgments. Trying to make one layer of the stack {stronger, smarter,
faster, bigger,} while ignoring the others doesn't help. Trying to make
educated guesses as to what the user intends doesn't help either.
The first bug we'll get when adding a "ZFS is not going to be able to
fix data inconsistency problems" error message to every pool creation or
similar operation is going to be "Need a flag to turn off the warning
message..."
said "flag" is 2>/dev/null ;-)
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
