On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Miles Nordin wrote:
>
> no, I think ZFS should be fixed.
>
> 1. the procedure you used is how hot spares are used, so anyone who
>   says it's wrong for any reason is using hindsight bias.
>
> 2. Being able to pull data off a failing-but-not-fully-gone drive is
>   something a good storage subsystem should be able to do.  I might
>   not expect it of LVM2 or of crappy raid-on-a-card, but I would
>   definitely expect it from Netapp/EMC/Hitachi.

Please describe (in detail) how ZFS can be improved to be able to 
retrieve data from a failing drive (which might take minutes to return 
a read error due to "consumer" drive firmware) in a reasonable amount 
of time.  I look forward to your response.

Thanks,

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Reply via email to