Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 00:59:43 +0100 From: xorquewasp@googlemail.com To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Request for opinions - gvinum or ccd? Message-ID: <20090531235943.GA77374@logik.internal.network> In-Reply-To: <0229B3BF1BE94C82AA11FD06CBE0BDEF@uk.tiscali.intl> References: <20090530175239.GA25604@logik.internal.network> <20090530144354.2255f722@bhuda.mired.org> <20090530191840.GA68514@logik.internal.network> <20090530162744.5d77e9d1@bhuda.mired.org> <A5BB2D2B836A4438B1B7BD8420FCC6A3@uk.tiscali.intl> <20090531201445.GA82420@logik.internal.network> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905312355240.26545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <0229B3BF1BE94C82AA11FD06CBE0BDEF@uk.tiscali.intl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
There is one last thing I'd like clarified. From the zpool manpage: In order to take advantage of these features, a pool must make use of some form of redundancy, using either mirrored or raidz groups. While ZFS supports running in a non-redundant configuration, where each root vdev is simply a disk or file, this is strongly discouraged. A single case of bit corruption can render some or all of your data unavailable. Is this supposed to mean: "ZFS is more fragile than most. If you don't use redundancy, one case of bit corruption will destroy the filesystem" Or: "Hard disks explode often. Use redundancy."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090531235943.GA77374>