Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:31:10 +0100 From: Pete French <petefrench@ingresso.co.uk> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, tsw5@duke.edu Subject: Re: zfs on geli vs. geli on zfs (via zvol) Message-ID: <E1Qbr70-000KIT-Nl@dilbert.ingresso.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106281131250.23640@skylab.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> While zfs on geli is less complex (in the sense that geli on zfs > involves two layers of filesystems), I'm concerned as to whether > encrypting the device will somehow affect zfs' ability to detect > silent corruption, self-heal, or in any other way adversely affect > zfs' functionality. In my mind, if I use geli on zfs, then I've > got zfs directly on a device and the zvol it's providing will be > transparently gaining the benefits of zfs' various features, providing > a "safety layer" against device failure and silent corruption that > I'm not sure if geli would detect. These are very good questions - I ran ZFS on top of geli for a long time, and what I found was that when there were problems with the underlying discs, then geli would have problems and those would not be reported back to ZFS properly. I got lockups under those circumstances - when is witched to ZFS on top directly what I got were discs dropping out and ZFS properly continuing with the remaining drives. I never managed to characterise it well enougnh to file a PR I am afraid though - it only ever happened with failing hardware which made it hard to reproduce. -pete.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1Qbr70-000KIT-Nl>