On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Ross Smith wrote: > > However, I've just had another idea. Since the uberblocks are pretty >> vital in recovering a pool, and I believe it's a fair bit of work to >> search the disk to find them. Might it be a good idea to allow ZFS to >> store uberblock locations elsewhere for recovery purposes? >> > > Perhaps it is best to leave decisions on these issues to the ZFS designers > who know how things work. > > Previous descriptions from people who do know how things work didn't make > it sound very difficult to find the last 20 uberblocks. It sounded like > they were at known points for any given pool. > > Those folks have surely tired of this discussion by now and are working on > actual code rather than reading idle discussion between several people who > don't know the details of how things work. > People who "don't know how things work" often aren't tied down by the baggage of knowing how things work. Which leads to creative solutions those who are weighed down didn't think of. I don't think it hurts in the least to throw out some ideas. If they aren't valid, it's not hard to ignore them and move on. It surely isn't a waste of anyone's time to spend 5 minutes reading a response and weighing if the idea is valid or not. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
