On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:03:33PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
> As others have pointed out, you wouldn't have reached this point with
> redundancy - the file would have remained intact despite the hardware
> failure. It is strictly correct that to restore the data you'd need
> to refer to a bac
On 28-Nov-06, at 7:02 PM, Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
On 11/28/06, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suspect this will be the #1 complaint about zfs as it becomes more
popular. "It worked before with ufs and hw raid, now with zfs it says
my data is corrupt! zfs sux0rs!"
That's not the
On 11/28/06, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suspect this will be the #1 complaint about zfs as it becomes more
popular. "It worked before with ufs and hw raid, now with zfs it says
my data is corrupt! zfs sux0rs!"
That's not the problem, so much as "zfs says my file system is cor
I suspect this will be the #1 complaint about zfs as it becomes more
popular. "It worked before with ufs and hw raid, now with zfs it says
my data is corrupt! zfs sux0rs!"
#2 how do i grow a raid-z.
The answers to these should probably be in a faq somewhere. I'd argue
that the best practices
