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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?op.wrbjup0m34t2sn>