Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:50:07 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS vfs.zfs.cache_flush_disable and ZIL reliability Message-ID: <ilt3if$5vj$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20110317074558.GA2248@icarus.home.lan> References: <20110317071618.GB49199@blazingdot.com> <20110317074558.GA2248@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17/03/2011 08:45, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > General question to users and/or developers: > > Can someone please explain to me why people are so horribly focused (I > would go as far to say OCD) on this topic? For me, it's a matter of statistics; if this can improve the chances of data surviving by (just guessing here) 10%, it might be worth it. > Won't there *always* be some degree of potential loss of data in the > above two circumstances? Shouldn't the concern be less about "how much > data just got lost" and more about "is the filesystem actually usable > and clean/correct?" (ZFS implements the latter two assuming you're > using mirror or raidz). As an admin, I'd much rather have a file system that's clean with some data lost, but as a user I think I would be unhappy with any data loss :) Backups still rule. ZFS is covered (presumably, as I don't really get from the code how it's supposed to work - any clarification for pjd@, mm@ and others would be appreciated) and I've talked with McKusick about BIO_FLUSH in UFS and it will happen as soon as I have the time to follow up.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ilt3if$5vj$1>