Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:52:21 -0700 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Jeremy Chadwick <koitsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> Subject: Re: constant zfs data corruption Message-ID: <73C3E69D-07EC-4266-87AB-97E37D0EED1C@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20081020171927.GB8551@icarus.home.lan> References: <200810171530.45570.joao@matik.com.br> <E3C2EAB9-12ED-4D3E-B07A-E2FF5892D26A@mac.com> <200810200837.40451.joao@matik.com.br> <20081020132208.GA3847@icarus.home.lan> <98238FC8-0FC4-4410-829F-EF2EA16A57B8@mac.com> <20081020164831.GA8016@icarus.home.lan> <45836B9A-CB6E-4B95-911E-0023230B8F82@mac.com> <20081020171927.GB8551@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 20, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >> 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. > > Ahh, I see. So to paraphrase, ZFS can detect checksum errors (data > corruption) using any pool type (single disk, mirror, raidz, > whatever), > but can only *repair* the error when using a mirror or raidz. I think that should be the case, yes. Regards, -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?73C3E69D-07EC-4266-87AB-97E37D0EED1C>