On 16 Mar 2009, at 16:20, Uwe Dippel wrote:
Easy. I happen to be sysadmin, and my backups have to reliable.
Yanking out a drive has happened here, somewhat frequently, though
always unintentional, without proper umount. I have yanked a few,
and so have my users. But I was - in the case of e
I am trying to configure sendmail so that I may be able to send emails using my
gmail account from the command like (using mail/mailx commands).
I found following two articles which talk about same thing BUT for OpenBSD. Can
someone take a look to brief what exactly is equivalent in case of Sola
Uwe Dippel wrote:
[i]I don't understand why the rules for ZFS are any different from the
rules for any other filesystem. Why don't you try pulling out drives for
UFS and pcfs and seeing whether they are corrupted or not? Guess what,
they are equally likely to be corrupted, but you simply wont be
[i]I don't understand why the rules for ZFS are any different from the
rules for any other filesystem. Why don't you try pulling out drives for
UFS and pcfs and seeing whether they are corrupted or not? Guess what,
they are equally likely to be corrupted, but you simply wont be ablt to
detect the c
Hi Mike,
This is the start of the thread:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=91426&tstart=90
I believe the root cause of this issue was that the poster yanked a
disk from a live file system, thinking zfs umount was the command
to remove a disk from a ZFS storage pool.
Cindy
Uwe Dippel wrote:
Try the thread "ZFS: unreliable for professional usage?" in zfs-discuss for further
info, and read how SUN engineers agree to potential corruption without proper umount &&
export.
Could you please send me the link for the above discussion? I've
searched the opensolaris zf
Hang on one sec Isn't this completely true for ALL filesystems,
except that others can't detect that corruption has occurred?
Mike is absolutely correct (and on the earlier email as well). No
matter what the
criticism of ZFS, every other filesystem has it far worse. I've been
carryin
Uwe Dippel wrote:
Try the thread "ZFS: unreliable for professional usage?" in zfs-discuss for further
info, and read how SUN engineers agree to potential corruption without proper umount &&
export.
Hang on one sec Isn't this completely true for ALL filesystems,
except that others can't
Try the thread "ZFS: unreliable for professional usage?" in zfs-discuss for
further info, and read how SUN engineers agree to potential corruption without
proper umount && export.
Don't. Simply don't. At least not yet, as long as the recovery utility for the
Überblocks is pending.
Then test-test
Uwe Dippel wrote:
vfat/pcfs seems to be the best alternative.
Search the archives, and you'll find that under specific circumstances ZFS could damage the data beyond a chance for recovery, so avoid it.
If you care about data integrity, ZFS is your friend.
Yes, if your data is corrupted. (NOT
10 matches
Mail list logo
