From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 5 19:01:48 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FDA16A46C for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:01:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe@skyrush.com) Received: from shadow.wildlava.net (shadow.wildlava.net [67.40.138.81]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060C713C4E8 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:01:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe@skyrush.com) Received: from [129.162.240.95] (unknown [129.162.240.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shadow.wildlava.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D73E8F429; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:01:46 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <47A8B24D.9050904@skyrush.com> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:00:29 -0700 From: Joe Peterson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brooks Davis References: <47A73C8D.3000107@skyrush.com> <86prvby5o1.fsf@ds4.des.no> <47A864D9.4060504@skyrush.com> <864pcnxz8f.fsf@ds4.des.no> <47A88ADE.7050503@skyrush.com> <86abmfwc6h.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080205173102.GA85735@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <20080205173102.GA85735@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav Subject: Re: Forcing full file read in ZFS even when checksum error encountered X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:01:48 -0000 Brooks Davis wrote: > We've also experienced several situations were zfs was detecting > corruption caused by bad cabling or bad controller firmware so SMART had > nothing to report. Were the errors sporadic/intermittent? I'd think that if it was cabling, the checksum error could happen some times and not others. Mine seems to be predictable and always there... Also, no error was reported when the file was written, and I think ZFS checks after writing. Strange. This is one reason why I'm very curious which bits are bad. -Joe