From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 22 15:26:47 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A671E8E3
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:26:47 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from feld@feld.me)
Received: from feld.me (unknown [IPv6:2607:f4e0:100:300::2])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81656D68
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:26:47 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=feld.me;
 s=blargle; 
 h=In-Reply-To:Message-Id:From:Mime-Version:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:Content-Type;
 bh=3e2wB5Elmx3X0/KQltluoCSz/nMn6XSj22/2HZRlSk4=; 
 b=Z0uLYJR6S+FmoiWT2Xo59+mIXkjgcsZompOzM6o2lMkKPO20NrFfyUfR6FrSopNJt2HLkDeAZ5yA8XcRJnQhc1/GPXeH4YfLCEP6Kv4CH5dfT+xPaAalWzOfgkSlkhnQ;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mwi1.coffeenet.org)
 by feld.me with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <feld@feld.me>)
 id 1TxfkM-000M2F-8N; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:26:46 -0600
Received: from feld@feld.me by mwi1.coffeenet.org (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4)
 with esmtpsa id 1358868399-62102-17996/5/1; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:26:39
 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Suggesting ZFS "best practices" in FreeBSD
References: <314B600D-E8E6-4300-B60F-33D5FA5A39CF@sarenet.es>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301220759420.61512@wonkity.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:26:39 -0600
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: Mark Felder <feld@feld.me>
Message-Id: <op.wrbjup0m34t2sn@markf.office.supranet.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301220759420.61512@wonkity.com>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.12 (FreeBSD)
Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:26:47 -0000

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?