Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:15:20 -0500 From: Thomas Burgess <wonslung@gmail.com> To: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Plans for Logged/Journaled UFS Message-ID: <deb820500912201815h4b6ec755r1f813c4fbd27f31a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B2ED222.4050304@feral.com> References: <20091030223225.GI5120@datapipe.com> <4AEB6D79.5070703@feral.com> <4B2E0FA9.1050003@fsn.hu> <4B2E65FC.9070609@feral.com> <4B2E95AE.9040402@fsn.hu> <deb820500912201428i39f739b6v7dcf7624840a2722@mail.gmail.com> <4B2ED222.4050304@feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
yes, it just saved me bit time. I had a raid controller failing on me. It cased errors across several drives. I had set up ZFS in passthrough mode so it was able to find and repair the errors. Without scrubs and this feature i'd just be SOL On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com> wrote: > > end to end data integrity via checksums is great. >> >> >> > Mandatory given how close disk densities are to random bit failure. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?deb820500912201815h4b6ec755r1f813c4fbd27f31a>