On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:58:48PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: > >But note that the setup you describe puts ZFS in no worse a situation > >than any other filesystem. > > Well, actually, it does. ZFS is susceptible to a class of failure modes > I classify as "kill the canary" types. ZFS will detect errors and complain > about them, which results in people blaming ZFS (the canary). If you > follow this forum, you'll see a "kill the canary" post about every month > or so. > > By default, ZFS implements the policy that uncorrectable, but important > failures may cause it to do an armadillo impression (staying with the > animal theme ;-) but for which some other file systems, like UFS, will > blissfully ignore -- putting data at risk. Occasionally, arguments will > arise over whether this is the best default policy, though most folks > seem to agree that data corruption is a bad thing. Later versions of > ZFS, particularly that available in Solaris 10 10/08 and all OpenSolaris > releases, allow system admins to have better control over these policies.
I've seen many of those threads. ZFS won't put your data at risk, but the user is used to UFS (and others) doing so, and they tend to prefer that to ZFS panics. It's not that ZFS puts your data at risk in this scenario, but your operations, which for many is actually much worse than risking their data. Here's hoping for the end of HW RAID. Nico -- _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
