On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote: > In this specific use case I would rather have a system that's still bootable > and runs as best it can
That's what would happen if the corruption happens on part of the disk (e.g. bad sector). > than an unbootable system that has detected an > integrity problem especially at this point in ZFS's life. If ZFS would not > panic the kernel and give the option to fail or mark file(s) bad, You'd be unable to access that particular file. Access to other files would still be fine. > it > would be very annoying if ZFS barfed on a technicality and I had to > reinstall the whole OS because of a kernel panic and an unbootable system. It shouldn't do that. Plus, if you look around a bit, you'll find some tutorials to back up the entire OS using zfs send-receive. So even if for some reason the OS becomes unbootable (e.g. blocks on some critical file is corrupted, which would cause panic/crash no matter what filesystem you use), the "reinstall" process is basically just a zfs send-receive plus installing the bootloader, so it can be VERY fast. This is what I do on linux (ubuntu + zfsonlinux). Two notebooks and one USB disk (which function as rescue/backup disk) basically store the same copy of the OS dataset, with very small variations (only four files) for each environment. I can even update one of them and copy the update result (using incremental send) to the others, making sure I will always have the same working environment no matter which notebook I'm working on. -- Fajar _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss