On Fri, April 30, 2010 13:44, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Bob Friesenhahn < > bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Tonmaus wrote: >> >> Recommending to not using scrub doesn't even qualify as a workaround, >> in >>> my regard. >>> >> >> As a devoted believer in the power of scrub, I believe that after the >> OS, >> power supplies, and controller have been verified to function with a >> good >> scrubbing, if there is more than one level of redundancy, scrubs are not >> really warranted. With just one level of redundancy it becomes much >> more >> important to verify that both copies were written to disk correctly. >> > Without a periodic scrub that touches every single bit of data in the > pool, > how can you be sure that 10-year files that haven't been opened in 5 years > are still intact? > > Self-healing only comes into play when the file is read. If you don't > read > a file for years, how can you be sure that all copies of that file haven't > succumbed to bit-rot?
Yes, that's precisely my point. That's why it's especially relevant to archival data -- it's important (to me), but not frequently accessed. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
