From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 24 00:34:11 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4826E106566C for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:34:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andrew@modulus.org) Received: from email.octopus.com.au (email.octopus.com.au [122.100.2.232]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B468FC0C for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:34:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by email.octopus.com.au (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 718665CB91E; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:10:00 +1100 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on email.octopus.com.au X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, FH_DATE_PAST_20XX autolearn=no version=3.2.3 Received: from [10.7.0.130] (unknown [59.167.250.217]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: admin@email.octopus.com.au) by email.octopus.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6175CB917; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:09:56 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <4B5B94B8.7070509@modulus.org> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:30:48 +1100 From: Andrew Snow User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090623) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rich , freebsd-fs@freebsd.org References: <5da0588e1001222223m773648am907267235bdcf882@mail.gmail.com> <5da0588e1001230014k1b8a32f8v42046497265429ed@mail.gmail.com> <5da0588e1001231415t403f29ceq6e8dcd16edb4a28@mail.gmail.com> <5da0588e1001231541l246769eao410c5ea6ccca0de4@mail.gmail.com> <5da0588e1001231615t37c22575uedaae938be40f530@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5da0588e1001231615t37c22575uedaae938be40f530@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Errors on a file on a zpool: How to remove? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:34:11 -0000 Rich wrote: > I claim this is still Bad Behavior, and should be resolvable without > doing something like that. I cannot agree that silent corruption (which would have happened with any other filesystem) is preferable to what ZFS is doing here. You had bad RAM, and no redundancy in a huge RAID0, I think it would be reasonable to have to restore from backups or recreate the data and not pin blame on ZFS. - Andrew