Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:26:39 -0600 From: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Suggesting ZFS "best practices" in FreeBSD Message-ID: <op.wrbjup0m34t2sn@markf.office.supranet.net> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301220759420.61512@wonkity.com> References: <314B600D-E8E6-4300-B60F-33D5FA5A39CF@sarenet.es> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301220759420.61512@wonkity.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:04:42 -0600, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote: > I'm a proponent of using various types of labels, but my impression > after a recent experience was that ZFS metadata was enough to identify > the drives even if they were moved around. That is, ZFS bare metadata > on a drive with no other partitioning or labels. > Is that incorrect? If you have an enclosure with 48 drives can you be confident which drive is failing using only the ZFS metadata?home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wrbjup0m34t2sn>