On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Ross wrote:
>
> I believe ZFS should apply the same tough standards to pool
> availability as it does to data integrity. A bad checksum makes ZFS
> read the data from elsewhere, why shouldn't a timeout do the same
> thing?
A problem is that for some devices, a five minute timeout is ok. For
others, there must be a problem if the device does not respond in a
second or two.
If the system or device is simply overwelmed with work, then you would
not want the system to go haywire and make the problems much worse.
Which of these do you prefer?
o System waits substantial time for devices to (possibly) recover in
order to ensure that subsequently written data has the least
chance of being lost.
o System immediately ignores slow devices and switches to
non-redundant non-fail-safe non-fault-tolerant may-lose-your-data
mode. When system is under intense load, it automatically
switches to the may-lose-your-data mode.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
