Is this true for single-sector, vs. single-ZFS-block, errors? (Yes, it's
pathological and probably nobody really cares.) I didn't see anything in the
code which falls back on single-sector reads. (It's slightly annoying that the
interface to the block device drivers loses the SCSI error
Hi Matt,
Interesting proposal. Has there been any
consideration if free space being reported for a ZFS
filesystem would take into account the copies
setting?
Example:
zfs create mypool/nonredundant_data
zfs create mypool/redundant_data
df -h /mypool/nonredundant_data
The biggest problem I see with this is one of observability, if not all
of the data is encrypted yet what should the encryption property say ?
If it says encryption is on then the admin might think the data is
safe, but if it says it is off that isn't the truth either because
some of it maybe
Anton B. Rang wrote:
The biggest problem I see with this is one of observability, if not all
of the data is encrypted yet what should the encryption property say ?
If it says encryption is on then the admin might think the data is
safe, but if it says it is off that isn't the truth either
True - I'm a laptop user myself. But as I said, I'd assume the whole disk
would fail (it does in my experience).
That's usually the case, but single-block failures can occur as well. They're
rare (check the uncorrectable bit error rate specifications) but if they
happen to hit a critical file,
Take this for what it is: the opinion on someone who knows less about zfs than
probably anyone else on this thread ,but...
I would like to add my support for this proposal.
As I understand it, the reason for using ditto blocks on metadata, is that
maintaining their integrity is vital for the
On 12/09/06, Celso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the great things about zfs, is that it protects not just against
mechanical failure, but against silent data corruption. Having this available
to laptop owners seems to me to be important to making zfs even more attractive.
I'm not arguing
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Here is a proposal for a new 'copies' property
which would allow
different levels of replication for different
filesystems.
Thanks everyone for your input.
The problem that this feature attempts to address is
when you have some
data that is more important
Hi Matt,
Interesting proposal. Has there been any consideration if free space being
reported for a ZFS filesystem would take into account the copies setting?
Example:
zfs create mypool/nonredundant_data
zfs create mypool/redundant_data
df -h /mypool/nonredundant_data
