From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 20 17:19:50 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A58C01065682; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:19:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from msrv.matik.com.br (msrv.matik.com.br [200.153.48.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC658FC17; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:19:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) Received: from [10.10.2.2] (189-19-2-198.dsl.telesp.net.br [189.19.2.198]) by msrv.matik.com.br (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m9KHJfwA071412; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:19:41 -0200 (BRST) (envelope-from joao@matik.com.br) From: JoaoBR Organization: Infomatik To: Chuck Swiger Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:18:01 -0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200810171530.45570.joao@matik.com.br> <20081020164831.GA8016@icarus.home.lan> <45836B9A-CB6E-4B95-911E-0023230B8F82@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <45836B9A-CB6E-4B95-911E-0023230B8F82@mac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810201518.01678.joao@matik.com.br> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.1 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL, BR_RECEIVED_SPAMMER, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN02, TW_ZF autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/8451/Mon Oct 20 14:02:15 2008 on msrv.matik.com.br X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Jeremy Chadwick , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: constant zfs data corruption X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:19:50 -0000 On Monday 20 October 2008 15:03:14 Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Oct 20, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > Hm... I thought we determined earlier in this thread that the OP is > > not > > getting the benefits of ZFS checksums because he's not using raidz > > (only > > a single disk with a single pool)? > > He's not getting working filesystem redundancy with the existing > config and is vulnerable to losing data from a single drive failure, > agreed. But the ZFS checksum mechanism should still be working to > detect data corruption, even though ZFS cannot recover the corrupted > data the way it otherwise would if redundancy was available. > all right and understood but shouldn't something as fsck should correct the= =20 error? Seems kind of problematic to me mounting zfs in single user mode,=20 deleting the file and restarting the OS ? =2D-=20 Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br