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
