Johan Hartzenberg wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Richard Elling > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Mikael Kjerrman wrote: > > define a lot :-) > > > > We are doing about 7-8M per second which I don't think is a lot > but perhaps it is enough to screw up the estimates? Anyhow the > resilvering completed about 4386h earlier than expected so > everything is ok now, but I still feel that the way it figures out > the number is wrong. > > > > Yes, the algorithm is conservative and very often wrong until you > get close to the end. In part this is because resilvering works > in time > order, not spatial distance. In ZFS, the oldest data is resilvered > first. > This is also why you will see a lot of "thinking" before you see a > lot of I/O because ZFS is determining the order to resilver the data. > Unfortunately, this makes time completion prediction somewhat > difficult to get right. > > > Hi Richard, > > Would it not make more sense then for the program to say something > like "No Estimate Yet" during the early part of the process, at least?
Yes. That would be a good idea. Sounds like a good, quick opportunity for a community contributor :-) -- richard > > Cheers, > _hartz _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
