Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:01:57 -0700 From: Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com> To: Thomas Backman <serenity@exscape.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS: Silent/hidden errors, nothing logged anywhere Message-ID: <3c1674c90906121401s19105167vf4535566321b45de@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <920A69B1-4F06-477E-A13B-63CC22A13120@exscape.org> References: <920A69B1-4F06-477E-A13B-63CC22A13120@exscape.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Backman<serenity@exscape.org> wrot= e: > OK, so I filed a PR late May (kern/135050): > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D135050=A0. > I don't know if this is a "feature" or a bug, but it really should be > considered the latter. The data could be repaired in the background witho= ut > the user ever knowing - until the disk dies completely. I'd prefer to hav= e > warning signs (i.e. checksum errors) so that I can buy a replacement driv= e > *before* that. > > Not only does this mean that errors can go unnoticed, but also that it's > impossible to figure out which disk is broken, if ZFS has *temporarily* > repaired the broken data! THAT is REALLY bad! > Is this something that we can expect to see changed before 8.0-RELEASE? I'm fairly certain that we've discussed this already. Solaris uses FMA - I don't think that I'll get to a "real fix" any time soon. The time that I do have will go to addressing stability problems (memory over-allocation, NFS interaction, control directory mounts) all of which cause panics. Maintaining them persistently in the label doesn't make sense - when do you drop them? Would a simple log message about the number of checksum errors suffice? Cheers, Kip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3c1674c90906121401s19105167vf4535566321b45de>