I'm not sure I follow how that can happen, I thought ZFS writes were designed to be atomic? They either commit properly on disk or they don't?
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Ross wrote: > >> My concern is that ZFS has all this information on disk, it has the >> ability to know exactly what is and isn't corrupted, and it should (at least >> for a system with snapshots) have many, many potential uberblocks to try. >> It should be far, far better than UFS at recovering from these things, but >> for a certain class of faults, when it hits a problem it just stops dead. > > While ZFS knows if a data block is retrieved correctly from disk, a > correctly retrieved data block does not indicate that the pool isn't > "corrupted". A block written in the wrong order is a form of corruption. > > Bob > ====================================== > Bob Friesenhahn > bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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
