On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:07:52PM +0000, Ross Smith wrote: > It sounds to me like there are several potentially valid filesystem > uberblocks available, am I understanding this right? > > 1. There are four copies of the current uberblock. Any one of these > should be enough to load your pool with no data loss. > > 2. There are also a few (would love to know how many) previous > uberblocks which will point to a consistent filesystem, but with some > data loss.
My memory is that someone on this list said "3" in response to a question I had about it. I looked through the archives and couldn't come up with the post. It was over a year ago. > 3. Failing that, the system could be rolled back to any snapshot > uberblock. Any data saved since that snapshot will be lost. What is a "snapshot uberblock"? The uberblock points to the entire tree: live data, snapshots, clones, etc. If you don't have a valid uberblock, you don't have any snapshots. > Is there any chance at all of automated tools that can take advantage > of all of these for pool recovery? I'm sure there is. In addition, I think there needs to be more that can be done non-destructively. Any successful import is read-write, potentially destroying other information. It would be nice to get "df" or "zfs list" information so you could make a decision about using an older uberblock. Even better would be a read-only (at the pool level) mount so the data could be directly examined. -- Darren _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
