Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:55:08 -0500 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Duncan Young <duncan.young@pobox.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Boot from ZFS Message-ID: <20080712045508.GA28756@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <200807121043.10473.duncan.young@pobox.com> References: <4877A343.2010602@ibctech.ca> <20080711182430.GA76378@keltia.freenix.fr> <200807121043.10473.duncan.young@pobox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:43:09AM +1000, Duncan Young wrote: > Be carefull, I've just had a 6 disk raidz array die. Complete failure w= hich=20 > required restore from backup (the controler card which had access to 4 of= the=20 > disks, lost one disk, then a second (at which point the machine paniced, = Upon=20 > reboot the raidz array was useless (Metadata corrupted)). I'm also getti= ng=20 > reasonably frequent machine lockups (panics) in the zfs code. I'm going = to=20 > start collecting crash dumps see if anyone can help in the next week or t= wo. If you look at the research on disk corruption and failure modes both in recent proceeding of FAST and the latest issue of ;LOGIN: it's clear that any RAID-like scheme that does not tolerate double faults is likely to fail. In theory, zfs should tolerate certain classes of faults better than some other technologies, but can't deal with full disk double faults unless you use raidz2. > I guess what I'm trying to say is, that you can still lose everything on = an=20 > entire pool, so backups are still essential, an a couple of smaller pools= is=20 > probably preferable to one big pool (restore time is less). zfs is not %= 100=20 > (yet?). The lack of any type of fsck still causes me concern. Regardless of the technology, backups are essential. If you actually value your data, off-site backups are essential. -- Brooks > Duncan >=20 > PS I do think zfs is great, but it's not perfect. If I can boot directly= off=20 > zfs, I would make sure I had an offline replication of the boot disk, in = case=20 > of failure. >=20 > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:24:30 am Ollivier Robert wrote: > > According to Steve Bertrand: > > > "In the latest code, it's possible to boot directly from ZFS, no long= er > > > requiring a small non-ZFS boot partition. "No you can use only ZFS and > > > just enjoy it," he stated." > > > > > > ...if not, where can I find information on the best procedure to do s= o? > > > > This code is not yet committed to CURRENT, it is currently in a P4 bran= ch. > > Doug Rabson is also doing some work on it according to p4 changes. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >=20 --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFIeDkrXY6L6fI4GtQRApf4AJ9y5UeJKCsywim81Uo0vOAT5LsUPACdGXrA FuJFlcQ5WWcBt2WWMZQfopw= =3oyq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080712045508.GA28756>