From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 1 00:26:35 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B969B106566B for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 00:26:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D341E8FC15 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 00:26:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n510QUCU027339; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 02:26:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id n510QTtj027336; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 02:26:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 02:26:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Mike Meyer In-Reply-To: <20090531201408.45dd4334@bhuda.mired.org> Message-ID: References: <20090530175239.GA25604@logik.internal.network> <20090530144354.2255f722@bhuda.mired.org> <20090530191840.GA68514@logik.internal.network> <20090530162744.5d77e9d1@bhuda.mired.org> <20090531201445.GA82420@logik.internal.network> <0229B3BF1BE94C82AA11FD06CBE0BDEF@uk.tiscali.intl> <20090531235943.GA77374@logik.internal.network> <20090531201408.45dd4334@bhuda.mired.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, xorquewasp@googlemail.com Subject: Re: Request for opinions - gvinum or ccd? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:26:36 -0000 > Disks, unlike software, sometimes fail. Using redundancy can help modern SATA drives fail VERY often. about 30% of drives i bought recently failed in less than a year. > both checksum on and copies > 1 on, and the latter isn't the > default. It's probably better to let zpool provide the redundancy via > a mirror or raid configuration than to let zfs do it anyway. ZFS copies are far from what i consider useful. for example you set copies=2. You write a file, and get 2 copies. Then one disk with one copy fails, then you put another, do resilver but ZFS DOES NOT rebuild second copy. You need to write a program that will just rewrite all files to make this.