On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Miles Nordin <car...@ivy.net> wrote:
> > It's likely other filesystems are affected by ``the problem'' as I > define it, just much less so. If that's the case, it'd be much better > IMHO to fix the real problem once and for all, and find it so that it > stays fixed, than to make ZFS work around it by losing a tiny bit of > data instead of the whole pool. I don't think ZFS should feel > entitled to brag about protection from Silent Corruption, if it were > at the same time willing to silently boot without a slog, or silently > rollback to an earlier ueberblock, or if it acts like a cheap USB > stick when an FC switch reboots (by quietly losing things that were > written long ago). > I agree, silently rolling back would be a *BAD THING*. HOWEVER, not giving you the option to easily roll back *AT ALL* is a *WORSE THING*. I don't think zfs should brag about anything if my pool can be down for hours or days because I'm not given the option to roll back to a consistent state when I *KNOW* it's what I want to do. Of course, making that easy wouldn't sell support contracts, would it? --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
