On 3/2/16 5:08 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
I'll read that as "please don't integrate without mirror removal
because it will entice people to run 'zpool detach' to reduce their
redundancy". Let me know if I've misinterpreted your (Ray and
ilovezfs) position.
I assume your concern about "total pool loss" is if the remaining
plain device fails while doing the removal. It might be possible to
allow the detached device to be substituted for the failed device in
that case (we'd have to fix up the label).
I will take the unpopular position of opting for more features even if
it results in operating an expert system with the caveat that feature
and ramifications are reasonably documented.
Incidentally, if you taking feature requests 'rebalance' which results
in the redistribution of data and the defragmentation of metaslabs would
be at the top of my list. Rebuilding my postgres zpools every 12-18
months is starting to grind.
j.
-------------------------------------------
openzfs-developer
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/274414/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/274414/28015062-cce53afa
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=28015062&id_secret=28015062-f966d51c
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
